Cross-border employment relationships frequently raise complex questions regarding the law applicable to employment contracts. What qualifies as the employee’s habitual place of work if the place of work changes during the course of the employment relationship? The Court of Justice of the European Union had to answer this question in the Locatrans case which we analyse below.
ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.

The Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., has clarified the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (“ICC”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Court held that the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into a complaint even when the respondent is employed in a different department or organisation. The expression “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act was interpreted as procedural and not as a jurisdictional limitation. The Court further held that surrendering jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s department would defeat the remedial purpose of the statute and create barriers for victims seeking redress.

The Bombay High Court, in Milan CHSL v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. held that surrender of land reserved under a sanctioned development plan in exchange for development benefits such as waiver of compulsory open space requirements and grant of higher FSI constitutes a valid acquisition by agreement under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP”). Such development rights and FSI have measurable monetary value and amount to valid consideration, even if no monetary compensation is paid. Once possession is handed over pursuant to a concluded agreement and the landowner has availed the benefits of the sanctioned layout, title validly vests in the planning authority, and the landowner is estopped from challenging the acquisition or seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after an inordinate delay. Click here to read the Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in four appeals in the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs SEBI matter has set aside SEBI’s Orders dated 21 October 2022 passed by the Ld Whole Time Member and 31 October 2022 passed by the Ld Adjudicating Order, imposing penalties and restraints on Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (Bombay Dyeing), its promoters, directors, and related entities. The majority of members of SAT, comprising the two Technical Members, have held that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the Company and its group company, SCAL Services Limited (SCAL), did not constitute fraudulent or unfair trade practices, as there was no evidence of intent to deceive investors or manipulate the market.

The Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 23 December 2025 in Om Shri Sai Sra Co- operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2019 and connected matters), disposed of a group of over 60 writ petitions by directing the newly constituted Special Cells under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to promptly and effectively address grievances of slum dwellers relating to certain specific issues. The Court emphasized amicable resolution in the first instance, highlighting that harmonious settlement without adversarial litigation is in the best interest of slum dwellers. Please click here to read the full Order.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”), by notification dated 31 December 2025, has amended the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, to substantially ease the compliance burden on company directors by replacing the annual Know Your Customer (“KYC”) filing requirement with a triennial regime. The amendments also introduce a simplified KYC web-based form and facilitate easier voluntary closure of sick government companies through the Centralised Processing Centre (“C-PACE”). The changes will come into force from 31 March 2026. Please click here to read the Notification

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) has, vide notification dated 1 December 2025, notified the Companies (Specification of definition details) Amendment Rules, 2025 (“Amendment Rules”), substantially revising the thresholds for determining a “Small Company” under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Amendment Rules have come into force with immediate effect from 1 December 2025, and significantly expand the ambit of companies eligible for the relaxed compliance regime applicable to Small Companies.

Can personal data recorded by body-worn cameras be considered directly collected from the data subject? May controllers rely on the more flexible transparency regime of Article 14 GDPR when data are captured automatically, without interaction? The Court of Justice of the European Union dealt with these questions in the Storstockholms Lokaltrafik case, which we analyse below.

ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.

The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have recently passed the Repealing and Amending Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), which abolishes several obsolete enactments and amends specific existing laws. Among the most consequential amendments is the omission of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“Succession Act”).
The Bill, having been approved by both Houses of Parliament, is presently awaiting Presidential assent and notification in the Official Gazette. Once notified, the amendment will materially alter the legal framework governing testamentary succession in India

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”) has issued Circular No. 51/2025 dated 18 November 2025 (“Circular”) prescribing a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for execution and recovery of interest, penalty or compensation awarded in favour of allottees under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”). Click here to read the said Circular .
The Circular has been issued in direct compliance with the Order dated 6 October 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3565 of 2025, which mandated that MahaRERA orders awarding monetary relief must be executed as decrees of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, with full application of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order XXI. Click here to read the said Order .