LRTHE NATIONAL MONTHLY LEDGER

Indian Court Judgments in March 2026: LawLens Monthly Reporter

Explore 1140 LawLens reports on Indian court judgments published in March 2026, with case summaries, legal issues and key holdings.

← BACK TO LAWLENS REPORTER

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

March 2026 Judgments

1140 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
Fundamental right to protest is subject to reasonable administrative regulation of venue and duration. ### Summary The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to conduct a daily "Ahimsa Path" (protest) at a specific busy junction indefinitely. The petitioner challenged a police order that denied permission for the protest at his chosen location but offered alternative venues. The Court held that while the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly under Article 19 of the Constitution are cherished freedoms, they are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and convenience. The Court observed that a litigant cannot insist on a specific venue or an indeterminate duration for a protest, especially when such demands disrupt public traffic and administrative feasibility. Finding the petitioner’s refusal of alternative venues to be based on personal obstinacy and his remarks against national icons to be unwarranted, the Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹50,000 for wasting judicial time. ### Key Legal Principles * Non-Absolute Nature of Article 19 Rights: The fundamental rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are subject to reasonable restrictions under the constitutional scheme to ensure public order and orderly civic administration. * Administrative Regulation of Public Spaces: The State possesses the lawful authority to regulate the location and timing of protests to prevent public inconvenience and maintain traffic safety. * No Absolute Choice of Venue: The right to protest does not encompass an inherent or absolute right to occupy any specific public space at any time or for an indefinite duration solely at the protester's discretion. * Bona Fides in Writ Jurisdiction: The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is intended to remedy substantial injustice and cannot be invoked to enforce personal obstinacy or frivolous claims disguised as constitutional liberties. * Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Process: Courts may impose significant costs where a litigant consumes judicial resources with a meritless petition or makes intemperate remarks against respected public figures.. S. Prabhu vs The District collector, Then. Madras High Court. LawLens

Madras High Court·

Constitutional LawAdministrative and Public Law

Fundamental right to protest is subject to reasonable administrative regulation of venue and duration. ### Summary The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to conduct a daily "Ahimsa Path" (protest) at a specific busy junction indefinitely. The petitioner challenged a police order that denied permission for the protest at his chosen location but offered alternative venues. The Court held that while the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly under Article 19 of the Constitution are cherished freedoms, they are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and convenience. The Court observed that a litigant cannot insist on a specific venue or an indeterminate duration for a protest, especially when such demands disrupt public traffic and administrative feasibility. Finding the petitioner’s refusal of alternative venues to be based on personal obstinacy and his remarks against national icons to be unwarranted, the Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹50,000 for wasting judicial time. ### Key Legal Principles * Non-Absolute Nature of Article 19 Rights: The fundamental rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are subject to reasonable restrictions under the constitutional scheme to ensure public order and orderly civic administration. * Administrative Regulation of Public Spaces: The State possesses the lawful authority to regulate the location and timing of protests to prevent public inconvenience and maintain traffic safety. * No Absolute Choice of Venue: The right to protest does not encompass an inherent or absolute right to occupy any specific public space at any time or for an indefinite duration solely at the protester's discretion. * Bona Fides in Writ Jurisdiction: The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is intended to remedy substantial injustice and cannot be invoked to enforce personal obstinacy or frivolous claims disguised as constitutional liberties. * Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Process: Courts may impose significant costs where a litigant consumes judicial resources with a meritless petition or makes intemperate remarks against respected public figures.

The petitioner, appearing as a party-in-person and Union Secretary of “Pathu Roobai Iyakkam,” sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 09.03.2026 issued by the Inspector of Police, Thenkarai.

2 MIN READ

2026 INSC 280 (Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN vs. Union of India) Performance assessments recorded without career progression prospects cannot validly determine suitability for Permanent Commission. MA 1799-1803/2023 (Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal vs. Union of India) Deemed pensionable service entitles officers to notional salary increments but not to higher rank promotions. Civil Appeal No. 640/2025 (Neeraj Kumar vs. Union of India) Voluntary service exit and unreasonable delay in seeking redress preclude claims for Permanent Commission parity.. Wg Cdr Sucheta Edn vs Union Of India. Supreme Court. LawLens

Supreme Court·

Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

2026 INSC 280 (Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN vs. Union of India) Performance assessments recorded without career progression prospects cannot validly determine suitability for Permanent Commission. MA 1799-1803/2023 (Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal vs. Union of India) Deemed pensionable service entitles officers to notional salary increments but not to higher rank promotions. Civil Appeal No. 640/2025 (Neeraj Kumar vs. Union of India) Voluntary service exit and unreasonable delay in seeking redress preclude claims for Permanent Commission parity.

Six Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) challenged their denial of Permanent Commission (PC) across three selection boards (2019–2021).

3 MIN READ

### Seniority of Trademark Adoption on "Proposed to be Used" Basis Prevails Over Intervening Actual User Case Brief: *Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.* Facts: Respondent No. 2 applied for the trademark "20-20" in Class 30 on September 27, 2007, on a "proposed to be used" basis. The Appellant (Parle) applied for the identical mark one week later, on October 4, 2007, also on a "proposed to be used" basis. While Respondent No. 2’s application faced a 17-year delay due to Registry errors and subsequent litigation, the Appellant obtained registration in 2017 and commenced extensive commercial use from 2009. When Respondent No. 2’s application was finally advertised, the Appellant opposed it, claiming prior user and "first in the market" rights based on the *Neon Laboratories* (2016) precedent. Issue: Whether a junior adopter of a trademark who commences commercial use in the interregnum can defeat the registration of a senior adopter who applied on a "proposed to be used" basis. Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the registration in favour of Respondent No. 2, ruling: 1. Priority of Application (Section 18): Under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, proprietary rights are established from the date of application for marks filed on a "proposed to be used" basis. Physical use is not a prerequisite for and does not override the seniority of an earlier application. 2. Inapplicability of "First in Market" to Registration: The "first in the market" test (as per *Neon Laboratories*) pertains primarily to passing-off actions. In registration proceedings between two "proposed to be used" applicants, the senior adopter preserves priority regardless of the junior adopter’s intervening commercial use. 3. No Abandonment: The 17-year delay was attributable to the Registry and judicial processes, not Respondent No. 2’s lack of interest. Vigilant pursuit of an application negates claims of abandonment or non-use. 4. Approbate and Reprobate: The Appellant was barred from claiming "deceptive similarity" because, during the examination of its own mark, it had formally stated that the two marks were "visually, phonetically and conceptually different" to overcome Registry objections. Key Takeaway: In registration disputes between applicants filing on a "proposed to be used" basis, the date of application determines priority. A junior adopter cannot gain a superior right to registration merely by entering the market while the senior adopter's prior application is pending.. Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2025. Delhi High Court. LawLens

Delhi High Court·

Intellectual Property LawAdministrative and Public Law

### Seniority of Trademark Adoption on "Proposed to be Used" Basis Prevails Over Intervening Actual User Case Brief: *Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.* Facts: Respondent No. 2 applied for the trademark "20-20" in Class 30 on September 27, 2007, on a "proposed to be used" basis. The Appellant (Parle) applied for the identical mark one week later, on October 4, 2007, also on a "proposed to be used" basis. While Respondent No. 2’s application faced a 17-year delay due to Registry errors and subsequent litigation, the Appellant obtained registration in 2017 and commenced extensive commercial use from 2009. When Respondent No. 2’s application was finally advertised, the Appellant opposed it, claiming prior user and "first in the market" rights based on the *Neon Laboratories* (2016) precedent. Issue: Whether a junior adopter of a trademark who commences commercial use in the interregnum can defeat the registration of a senior adopter who applied on a "proposed to be used" basis. Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the registration in favour of Respondent No. 2, ruling: 1. Priority of Application (Section 18): Under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, proprietary rights are established from the date of application for marks filed on a "proposed to be used" basis. Physical use is not a prerequisite for and does not override the seniority of an earlier application. 2. Inapplicability of "First in Market" to Registration: The "first in the market" test (as per *Neon Laboratories*) pertains primarily to passing-off actions. In registration proceedings between two "proposed to be used" applicants, the senior adopter preserves priority regardless of the junior adopter’s intervening commercial use. 3. No Abandonment: The 17-year delay was attributable to the Registry and judicial processes, not Respondent No. 2’s lack of interest. Vigilant pursuit of an application negates claims of abandonment or non-use. 4. Approbate and Reprobate: The Appellant was barred from claiming "deceptive similarity" because, during the examination of its own mark, it had formally stated that the two marks were "visually, phonetically and conceptually different" to overcome Registry objections. Key Takeaway: In registration disputes between applicants filing on a "proposed to be used" basis, the date of application determines priority. A junior adopter cannot gain a superior right to registration merely by entering the market while the senior adopter's prior application is pending.

The Appellant (Parle) and Respondent No. 2 applied for the trademark "20-20" in Class 30 on a "proposed to be used" basis in 2007.

3 MIN READ

### Judicial Review of Security Clearance Denial Based on National Security and Geopolitical Considerations National security concerns and geopolitical assessments by the Executive are not subject to substantive judicial re-evaluation.. Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Others [Writ Petition No. 10537 of 2025 (with Review Petition No. 130 of 2025)]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Administrative and Public LawMilitary and National Security Law

### Judicial Review of Security Clearance Denial Based on National Security and Geopolitical Considerations National security concerns and geopolitical assessments by the Executive are not subject to substantive judicial re-evaluation.

The Petitioner, a lead partner in a Joint Venture (JV) with OJSC Euro Asian Construction Corporation “EVRASCON” (a foreign entity from Azerbaijan), emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) for two major infrastructure projec...

3 MIN READ

### Professional Legal Summary: Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. vs. SEBI Deficient service standards do not justify disgorgement of management fees absent evidence of wrongful gain. Key Legal Propositions: * Due Diligence Obligations: Asset Management Companies (AMCs) must conduct independent credit research on issuer entities as per Scheme Information Documents; reliance solely on promoter reputation or collateral value constitutes a lack of due care. * Maturity and Winding Up: Extending maturity dates of underlying securities beyond the scheme's maturity without unitholder consent violates Regulation 33(4) of MF Regulations and constitutes unauthorized partial redemption. * Timely Disclosure: A three-month delay in informing investors of significant adverse developments (e.g., security cover depletion) fails the "timely disclosure" mandate under Regulation 60. * Disgorgement vs. Penalty: Disgorgement is a restitutive remedy for "wrongful gain" or "averted loss" under Section 11B of the SEBI Act. It cannot be applied as a punitive measure for "abysmal standards of service" if unitholders suffered no actual monetary loss. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of regulatory violations and the imposed penalties but set aside the direction to disgorge investment management fees, as deficient service—without established illegal enrichment—does not meet the statutory threshold for disgorgement.. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Appeal No. 654 of 2021 and Appeal No. 527 of 2022. Securities Appellate Tribunal. LawLens

Securities Appellate Tribunal·

Banking and Finance LawAdministrative and Public Law

### Professional Legal Summary: Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. vs. SEBI Deficient service standards do not justify disgorgement of management fees absent evidence of wrongful gain. Key Legal Propositions: * Due Diligence Obligations: Asset Management Companies (AMCs) must conduct independent credit research on issuer entities as per Scheme Information Documents; reliance solely on promoter reputation or collateral value constitutes a lack of due care. * Maturity and Winding Up: Extending maturity dates of underlying securities beyond the scheme's maturity without unitholder consent violates Regulation 33(4) of MF Regulations and constitutes unauthorized partial redemption. * Timely Disclosure: A three-month delay in informing investors of significant adverse developments (e.g., security cover depletion) fails the "timely disclosure" mandate under Regulation 60. * Disgorgement vs. Penalty: Disgorgement is a restitutive remedy for "wrongful gain" or "averted loss" under Section 11B of the SEBI Act. It cannot be applied as a punitive measure for "abysmal standards of service" if unitholders suffered no actual monetary loss. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of regulatory violations and the imposed penalties but set aside the direction to disgorge investment management fees, as deficient service—without established illegal enrichment—does not meet the statutory threshold for disgorgement.

Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund launched six close-ended Fixed Maturity Plans (FMPs) which held investments in Zero Coupon Non-Convertible Debentures (ZCNCDs) issued by Konti Infrapower and Edison Utility Works (promoter e...

3 MIN READ

### Professional Disclosures and Due Diligence Obligation for Mutual Fund Asset and Trustee Companies Legal Principle: Mutual funds must conduct independent credit due diligence regardless of collateral and ensure timely disclosure of adverse events affecting redemption. Core Ruling: Disgorgement of management fees is impermissible as a remedy for deficient service absent evidence of wrongful gain or averted loss.. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Appeal No. 654 of 2021 and Appeal No. 527 of 2022.. Securities Appellate Tribunal. LawLens

Securities Appellate Tribunal·

Banking and Finance LawAdministrative and Public Law

### Professional Disclosures and Due Diligence Obligation for Mutual Fund Asset and Trustee Companies Legal Principle: Mutual funds must conduct independent credit due diligence regardless of collateral and ensure timely disclosure of adverse events affecting redemption. Core Ruling: Disgorgement of management fees is impermissible as a remedy for deficient service absent evidence of wrongful gain or averted loss.

Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund launched six Fixed Maturity Plans (FMPs) between 2013 and 2017.

3 MIN READ