(1) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. AJAY KUMAR MALIK[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Public Employment — Recruitment — Medical Unfitness — Suppression of Material Facts — A candidate found medically unfit for a post, specifically for knock knees, cannot retain an appointment if this vital fact was suppressed, especially when the initial appointment and subsequent reinstatement were based on either flawed India Law Library Docid # 2442450
(2) V.K. JOHN Vs. S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Challenge to Arbitral Award — Legal Representatives — The Arbitration Act is a complete code for dispute resolution — Legal representatives of a deceased party are entitled to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, as the Act envisions India Law Library Docid # 2442451
(3) BALAJI MADHUKAR KONKANWAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATTION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Relief of back wages and regularisation — Employee illegally terminated, ordered reinstatement with back wages by Labour Commissioner and Industrial Court — Employer challenged, but interim order for back wages deposit was made and employee reinstated as daily wager — Employee sought regularisation after completing 180 days of service, India Law Library Docid # 2442452
(4) HIMAKSHI Vs. RAHUL VERMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Recruitment Rules and Advertisement — Essential Qualifications — Work Experience — In absence of a specific rule or advertisement provision, a recruiting agency cannot relax essential eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a replacement for a mandatory essential qualification — A preference for a higher qualification operates only for eligible and meritorious candidates and does not India Law Library Docid # 2442453
(5) NILESH C. OJHA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 19 — Criminal Contempt — Scandalising the court — An advocate's public allegations against a sitting judge, made via a press conference and repeated in court applications, can constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the court, lowering its authority, and interfering with judicial proceedings — Such conduct is unbecoming of a legal professional and India Law Library Docid # 2442454
(6) PAWAN GARG AND OTHERS Vs. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2026 Land Acquisition and Development — Public Purpose De-reservation — Subject land originally earmarked for High School was de-reserved by competent authority due to insufficient area; subsequent sale to private individuals was upheld by civil courts and its finality was not challenged. India Law Library Docid # 2442455
(7) AUSTIN HYUNDAI (AUSTIN DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD) Vs. AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-04-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order refusing to set aside arbitral award — Scope of appellate jurisdiction — Limited to examining legality of Section 34 court's exercise of power, not correcting errors of fact or law by arbitrator. India Law Library Docid # 2442369
(8) DEEPAK SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Service Law — Seniority — Promotion — Rectification of administrative lapses — Notional seniority cannot be granted from a date prior to an employee's actual entry into the cadre, especially when it adversely affects others who were validly appointed earlier — The date of actual joining the post is the basis for seniority unless rules specifically India Law Library Docid # 2442332
(9) MUNNA LAL TOPPO Vs. CHHATTISGARH ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 9A — Disqualification for Government Contracts — A person is disqualified if they have a subsisting contract with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods or execution of works undertaken by that government in the course of their trade or business — The election petitioner admitted to having subsisting contracts with the appropriate Government in their India Law Library Docid # 2442333
(10) AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, DEESA Vs. NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2026 Subsidy for Cold Storage — Eligibility for subsidy depends on completion of the project and compliance with scheme guidelines, not just physical construction. The initial inspection found the facility to be at 'minimum capacity utilization', leading to pending subsidy. India Law Library Docid # 2442357
(11) NAGREEKA INDCON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. CARGOCARE LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Clause 25 of Bill of Lading — Interpretation of "can" — A clause stating that disputes "can be settled by arbitration" does not create a mandatory arbitration agreement — It implies a future possibility and requires further agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration, as opposed to a definitive commitment. India Law Library Docid # 2442358
(12) “IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE.”[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2026 Environmental Law and Wildlife Protection — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court's Suo Motu Cognizance — The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of rampant illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, recognizing its severe impact on wildlife habitats, including endangered Gharials. The Court issued notices to concerned states and authorities, highlighting that such destruction of India Law Library Docid # 2442359
(13) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUNITA SINGH AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim petition for compensation — Proof of negligence — In proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant has the burden to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Reliance on FIR, charge sheet, and India Law Library Docid # 2442371
(14) AMRA AND ANOTHER Vs. AASAM KHAN AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Limitation — Fraud — When a plaint is challenged on the ground of limitation, it should not be rejected at the threshold unless it is clearly barred on the face of it — Limitation is generally a mixed question of law and fact, and requires evidence to determine — Allegations of fraud are serious and can vitiate all proceedings, and typically do not have India Law Library Docid # 2442374
(15) INDERJIT KAUR Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Plaint — Necessary for fair adjudication — Plaintiff sought to include additional land owned by her deceased mother in a suit claiming a share based on natural succession and challenging a will — Suit aimed at determining inheritance rights of property owned by the mother — Amendment was essential to include all relevant property for a complete India Law Library Docid # 2442375
(16) HARYANA STATE THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. AMRISH KUMAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Property Law — Allotment of Land — Valuation of Excess Land — The issue concerns the valuation of excess land allotted to displaced persons — The High Court affirmed the lower courts' decision that the valuation should be determined by the Rehabilitation Department's rates, not those of the Consolidation Authorities, following precedent in Lal Singh v — Deputy Secretary to Government Haryana Rehabilitation India Law Library Docid # 2442376
(17) SUNDER LAL @ SURENDER SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. Vs. SHRI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for permanent injunction — Determination of ownership and possession of property within 'Lal Dora' — No documentary evidence on title, reliance on oral evidence and circumstantial factors — Appeals Court to re-appreciate evidence when lower courts differ on findings of fact, especially possession which is determinant. India Law Library Docid # 2442377
(18) SONU SOOD Vs. MADALSA SOOD AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Appeal — First Appellate Court's duty — A first appeal is a continuation of original proceedings and involves a rehearing of facts and law — The appellate court must analyze all evidence, provide cogent reasons for reversing a trial court's judgment, and comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, which mandates stating points for determination, decisions, reasoning, and relief — Failure to India Law Library Docid # 2442378
(19) DHAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Vs. LAJJAWATI AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in Appellate Court — Application to lead additional evidence (Special Power of Attorney) was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any reason for not producing the document before the lower courts, nor did they demonstrate due diligence, which are essential conditions for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. India Law Library Docid # 2442379
(20) PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRATARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Vs. SI BAL KISHAN AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-04-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Suit barred by limitation — Court's duty to dismiss — Even if the defense of limitation is not specifically raised, a court is bound to dismiss a suit if it is found to be barred by limitation as per law laid down by the Supreme Court. India Law Library Docid # 2442380