(1) 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
(2) 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
(3) 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
(4) 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
(5) 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
(6) 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
(7) 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
(8) 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
(9) NTPC LTD Vs. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 113(2)(d) — Constitution of India, 1950 — Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 53 — Municipal electricity tax — Taxable event — Auxiliary consumption — Held, the taxable event under Section 113(2)(d) is consumption and not generation — Auxiliary electricity utilised to operate power plant equipment constitutes consumption of electrical energy, distinct from an excise duty on generation — Source of electricity, purpose of use, or consumer's identity is India Law Library Docid # 2457192
(10) SHAKEEL QURESHI & ORS. Vs. RASHID QURESHI & ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 10 — Territorial Jurisdiction — Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause — Return of plaint — Plaintiffs instituted suit in Delhi challenging share transfer as violating a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) — MoU was executed at Bareilly and expressly conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Bareilly Courts — Plaint averments and documents alone are to be examined under Order 7 Rule 10 — Having founded their cause of action entirely upon the MoU, plaintiffs cannot India Law Library Docid # 2457193
(11) MMTC LTD Vs. CHAUHAN JEWELLERS AND ORS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Plausible view — Where the Arbitral Tribunal found that delay in realisation and shortfall in export proceeds were attributable to appellant's own conduct and departures from agreed export mechanisms, such factual determinations represent a permissible view of the record. An appellate court cannot sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence under Section 37 when the arbitral finding supplies an intelligible answer t India Law Library Docid # 2457194
(12) M/S. LAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -II[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-10-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 43B r/w Section 145A — Disallowance of unpaid excise duty on closing stock — Exclusive method of accounting — Assessee following standard mercantile accounting method did not debit unpaid excise duty on uncleared closing stock stored in bonded warehouse to Profit & Loss Account nor claimed it as an allowable deduction — AO disallowed unpaid excise duty on closing stock under Section 43B read with Section 145A and added India Law Library Docid # 2457223
(13) RAJU SHANTARAM KOLI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 31(1) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 376 and 342 — Sentence — Imposition of consecutive life sentences in a single trial — Legality of — Appellant convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 376 read with 342 IPC and awarded two life sentences, directed to run consecutively — Held, life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively — Since imprisonment for life implies India Law Library Docid # 2457224
(14) UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAMED RIFAS @ MOHAMED RIGBAS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-10-2026 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) — Section 43D(7) — Bar on grant of bail to foreign national — Applicability and essential conditions — Section 43D(7) commences with a non-obstante clause overriding sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 43D. To invoke the bar under Section 43D(7), three conditions must conjunctively co-exist: (i) the person must be an accused of an offence under UAPA; (ii) such person must India Law Library Docid # 2457225
(15) ECL FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ABHINAV MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-10-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Sections 5(8), 5(7), and 3(12) — Financial Debt and Default — Corporate Guarantee — Uninvoked Guarantee — Non-occurrence of default under a corporate guarantee or hypothecation agreement prior to the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) does not disqualify a lender from being a financial creditor — A facility qualifies as a financial debt under Section 5(8) regardless of whether a default has occurred — Any entity to whom a f India Law Library Docid # 2457226
(16) PREM RANJEET KUMAR SURAJ Vs. MUNNI KUMARI @ MONI[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii) — Annulment of marriage — Mental disorder — Burden of proof — Husband sought to declare marriage voidable alleging wife suffered from unsoundness of mind, rendering her unfit for marriage and procreation — Held, pleadings cannot substitute proof — Husband produced no documentary or medical evidence proving mental illness — Prescriptions and scan report produced merely showed pregnancy, failing to corroborate mental infirmity — W India Law Library Docid # 2457238
(17) GURJANT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15, 25 and 29 — Commercial quantity — Recovery of 150.271 kg Doda Post from vehicle — Occupants fled taking advantage of darkness after vehicle crashed — Petitioners identified through investigation — First petitioner sustained injuries during accident, identified recovery spot, and FASTag of offending vehicle was recovered from his possession — Communication and monetary t India Law Library Docid # 2457266
(18) BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 27-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Service Law — Contractual Employment — Replacement of one contractual employee with another — Petitioners working as Block Coordinators on contractual basis had their tenure extended for FY 2025-26 — Respondents sought to replace them with other contractual personnel through another agency without performance deficiency or cessation of work — Held, State instrumentalities remain bound by Article 14 — An ad hoc or temporary employee cannot ordinarily be India Law Library Docid # 2457276
(19) GOPAL CHANDRA BOSE Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 — Rule 8.12, Rule 8.15 — Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 — Rule 13(8), Rule 13(9), Rule 27(2)(a) — Video conferencing permitted due to infirmity — Saving clause — Although the 2021 Rules were repealed by the 2025 Rules, prior proceedings were saved under Rule 27(2)(a) — Both regulatory regimes authorize video conferencing where sickness, infirmity, or undue delay prevents physical appearance — No impediment India Law Library Docid # 2457319
(20) SH. SOMNATH KHARBANDA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. ARVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-10-2026 Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 74 — Forfeiture of earnest money — Breach of Agreement to Sell — Right of forfeiture is not an automatic consequence of breach — Section 74 awards reasonable compensation, making damage or legal injury a sine qua non — Where loss is capable of proof, it must be strictly proved, and the stipulated amount merely sets the maximum limit — Defendants claimed forfeiture on ground that they lost earnest money in a forward transaction, but failed to produce original d India Law Library Docid # 2457320