(1) BANDARI RAMCHANDER AND OTHERS Vs. MAITRI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-10-2026 Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 — Sections 7, 8 and 9 — Land Grabbing Cases — Title and ownership of property — Subject lands situated in Survey Nos. 100 and 101 of Miyapur Village classified as sarkari poramboke as early as 1912 — State’s title and ownership clearly established through historical revenue records and statutory vesting under A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation — Appellants and India Law Library Docid # 2457523
(2) SHREERAM BUILDERS Vs. UPENDRA KANTILAL THANAWALA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 and Section 37 (read with unamended Section 34) — Scope of judicial review — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as the jurisdiction under Section 34 — Unamended Section 34 applies to applications filed prior to 23.10.2015 — Arbitral award can be set aside if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, against the terms of the contract, or patently illegal, going to the root of the matter. India Law Library Docid # 2457524
(3) SRINIVASA T. AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-10-2026 Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Recruitment process — Cancellation of 2011 recruitment — Rampant corruption, blatant nepotism, and manipulation of answer scripts and records by KPSC officials vitiated entire selection process — High Court and Supreme Court in earlier rounds rightly affirmed annulment of selection — Segregating tainted and untainted candidates when selection itself is fundamentally tainted would interfere with India Law Library Docid # 2457526
(4) M/S MANSI FINANCE (CHENNAI) LTD. Vs. M. LALITHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-10-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 and Section 141 — Proceedings under — Clarification of judgment — M/s. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. vs. M. Lalitha & Others, AIR 2026 SC 2657 dealt with vicarious liability and maintainability of complaints where loans were advanced on promissory notes and cheques were dishonoured — Such judgment did not examine or adjudicate upon the specific provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money-lenders Act, 1957 or the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 201 India Law Library Docid # 2457525
(5) V. GOPALAKRISHANAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) — Disproportionate assets — Burden of proof and evidentiary standards — Onus on prosecution is to establish initial foundational facts regarding known sources of income and total assets/expenditure accumulated during check period — Once prosecution establishes that assets possessed by public servant are disproportionate to known sources of income, burden shifts to accused to account for same under Section 106 of Evidence Act, India Law Library Docid # 2457335
(6) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESHWAR Vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 143(2) & 292BB — Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) — Applicability of deeming fiction under Section 292BB — Assessment proceedings were reopened under Section 147 and notices under Section 148 were issued — Assessees requested that their original returns filed under Section 139 be treated as returns filed in response to Section 148 notice — Admittedly, no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before framing reassessment orders — Revenue contended that u India Law Library Docid # 2457336
(7) M/S THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. M/S SUPREMO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 25 — Transfer of commercial cross-suits — Convenience of parties and avoidance of conflicting decisions — Cross-suits filed by rival parties alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement pending in different jurisdictions (District Judge Commercial, Indore and High Court India Law Library Docid # 2457337
(8) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JHABRA RAM[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 47 [corresponding to Section 50, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)] & Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India — Communication of grounds of arrest — Prejudice-oriented test — High Court enlarged respondent on regular bail solely on ground that grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing prior to or at time of remand — Non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render arrest illegal or entitle accused to b India Law Library Docid # 2457338
(9) M/S ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards — Scope of Supreme Court's jurisdiction on certified question of law vs. Executing Court's jurisdiction — High Court granted liberty to seek clarification from Supreme Court as to why prior payment of principal amount in Indian Rupees in 2009 was not brought to its notice during reference on substantial question of law — Supreme Court held that once a certified substantial question of law under Article 134-A re India Law Library Docid # 2457339
(10) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. NARENDER KUMAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Armed Forces Pension Rules — Ministry of Defence (MoD) Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001 / Pension Regulations for Army, 2008, Regulation 82 — Category E(i) — Grant of War Injury Pension vs. Disability Pension — Entitlement of personnel posted in notified operational areas — Respondent contracted 'Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive)' while posted at Kargil during 'Operation Rakshak' — Ministry of Defence contended that 'Operation Rakshak' is an ongoing operation and does not qualify as an operation India Law Library Docid # 2457340
(11) SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. Vs. INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 4 & 16(2) — Appointment of Sole Arbitrator vs. Three-Member Panel — Waiver and Acquiescence — Distribution Franchisee Agreement provided for arbitration by a panel of three arbitrators — High Court appointed a sole arbitrator with consent of both parties, and subsequently substituted him with a new sole arbitrator, also with consent — Appellant participated in proceedings for over 18 months, consented to initial extension of time, and filed count India Law Library Docid # 2457341
(12) CHETAN SABHARWAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28(1) NEW DELHI[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-10-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 147 & 148 — Reopening of assessment — Test of "reason to believe" vs. "change of opinion" — Reassessment notices issued after expiry of 4 years based on a post-assessment Investigation Report from DGIT (Inv.) — Report revealed that shares of two companies sold by assessees were significantly overvalued compared to cost of land/building, and proceeds were utilized to acquire property and claim Section 54F deduction — Revenue recorded reasons that capital gains were India Law Library Docid # 2457342
(13) PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 110 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of non-compoundable offences on settlement — Power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from statutory compounding powers — High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction even in non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice — While serious or heinous offences affecting society cannot be quash India Law Library Docid # 2457347
(14) THOR VENTURES (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NYEQ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Post-award interim relief — Invocation by unsuccessful party — An unsuccessful party in arbitral proceedings can invoke Section 9 post-award seeking interim protection pending Section 34 challenge — Such relief is permissible in rare and compelling circumstances satisfying higher thresholds of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury — Court must act to preserve the efficacy of challenge proceedings and prevent irrevers India Law Library Docid # 2457348
(15) SMT. RAJ KUMARI & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 2(29) and 124-A — Bona fide passenger — Non-recovery of ticket — Effect of — Claim application dismissed by Tribunal holding deceased was not a bona fide passenger due to non-recovery of ticket and conflicting testimonies — Held, non-recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased's body is not conclusive to negate his status as a bona fide passenger — Initial burden upon claimants is not onerous and must be evaluated with attending circumstances, including witness t India Law Library Docid # 2457349
(16) MR. SUNIT SHAH Vs. M/S. JABSONS FOODS PVT. LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Sections 17 and 31 — Registered label mark — Scope of disclaimer — Suggestive versus descriptive marks — Plaintiff, registered proprietor of "SHAH HOT MIX (LABEL)" for namkeen, sought interim injunction against defendant's use of "HOT MIX" — Held, "HOT MIX" is the prominent and dominant feature of plaintiff's registered label — The combination is suggestive rather than descriptive, requiring imagination to discern product attributes — General disclaimer regarding descript India Law Library Docid # 2457350
(17) ANAND SARASWAT Vs. KAILASH SONI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 38 Rule 5 — Direction to furnish security before judgment — Drastic and extraordinary power — High Court held that the power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC must be exercised sparingly and in strict conformity with statutory requirements. A prima facie or bona fide claim cannot by itself warrant an order directing a defendant to furnish security. The plaintiff must establish through specific, substantiated material that the defendant is about to dispose of or r India Law Library Docid # 2457351
(18) KASTURI RAJAN & ORS. Vs. VATSALA VESCIO & ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 1 — Deletion of parties versus Abandonment of claim — Plaintiff sought deletion of certain defendants under Order I Rule 10, stating relief against them would not be pressed — Defendants argued this operated as an unconditional abandonment under Order 23 Rule 1 — Held, applications must be read holistically — The statement giving up relief was conditional upon deletion to avoid trial delay — Order I Rule 10 requires judicial de India Law Library Docid # 2457352
(19) MANOJ KUMAR PROP MK STEEL TRADERS Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Maintainability of writ petition — Alternate statutory remedy of appeal — Challenge to Orders-in-Original demanding tax and penalty for alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit — Held, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and wide, but ordinarily restrained when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available under the statute — Issues regarding validity of show-cause notices and India Law Library Docid # 2457353
(20) SONU Vs. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI & ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-10-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 10 read with Sections 9(m) and 9(n) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 506(1) — Child victim's evidence — Sole testimony — Corroboration — Hostile family members — Child victim aged seven years consistently deposed against her maternal uncle regarding sexual assault — Held, testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if found trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain conviction without independent corroboration — Evidence India Law Library Docid # 2457354