(1) AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(2) — Trap case — Proof of demand — Sine qua non — Prosecution must prove demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact — Mere recovery of tainted money from accused, absent proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction — Prosecution failed to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt, resting entirely on uncorroborated testimony of complainant where no independent India Law Library Docid # 2454628
(2) ADDL. COMMR. COMMERCIAL TAX AND OTHERS Vs. CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 — Schedule II Part IV Entry 20(ii) and Part VII Entry 1 — Classification of goods ('GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix') — Taxable event and incidence of taxation are determined by the nature and physical form of the good at the time of sale, not by its subsequent end use by the consumer India Law Library Docid # 2454629
(3) SUDHA RAKESH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Colourizing civil disputes into criminal offences — Tendency of litigants to give criminal colour to civil disputes is an open secret to prevent abuse of criminal process — Dispute arising out of agreement for sale and subsequent execution of sale deed in favour of ultimate buyer is purely civil in nature, lacking any element of criminality or foundational ingredients of cheating India Law Library Docid # 2454630
(4) PRASANTA KUMAR DHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes — In-laws — Supreme Court emphasized that criminalizing domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family — Courts must be circumspect and judicious, allowing invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials clearly constituting criminal India Law Library Docid # 2454631
(5) RUPALI KASHINATH SHIGWAN @ RUPALI AMOL JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 — Rule 17(7) — Powers of Scrutiny Committee — Vigilance Cell inquiry is meant for internal assistance and its findings are not binding on Scrutiny Committee — Committee possesses inherent powers to direct re-examination of specific suspect documents — Requirement to recor India Law Library Docid # 2454633
(6) ATUL ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 and Section 28 — Several instruments employed in single transaction — Scope and applicability — Where earlier development-cum-sale agreements accompanied by possession, consideration, and Powers of Attorney are followed years later by registered conveyances to perfect title, both sets of instruments constitute a single continuous transaction under Section 4. The applicability of Section 4 depends on the substance and connection between the instruments, not India Law Library Docid # 2454642
(7) ATUL ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 — Several instruments employed in single transaction — Execution of subsequent conveyance to perfect title — Earlier Development-cum-Sale Agreements of 1985 and 1996 were followed by delivery of possession, payment of consideration, and execution of powers of attorney — Formal Conveyance Deeds executed in 2012 — Held, the entire chain of documents must be evaluated to determine the real nature and substance of the transaction — Substantial delay between in India Law Library Docid # 2454651
(8) POONAM PATWAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 — Rule 43 — Age Relaxation — Directorate of Education Notification dated 01.11.1980 — Applicability to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) — MCD is an autonomous body under Part IX-A of the Constitution governed by distinct statutory Recruitment Rules — MCD Recruitment Rules prescribed upper age limit of 30 years for Teacher (Primary) without adopting the 10-year age relaxation for women provided under the 1980 Notification — Held, an executive notification is India Law Library Docid # 2454425
(9) MADHU DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Section 23 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 257 days in filing appeal — Appellant was poor, illiterate, and suffered from paucity of funds, hindering timely legal advice — Beneficial nature of the legislation warrants a liberal approach — Attending circumstances established sufficient cause — Delay condoned. India Law Library Docid # 2454426
(10) BRITISH MARINE PLC Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34, 36 and 37 — Execution of arbitral award — Discharge of bank guarantee — Decree Holder furnished a bank guarantee to secure the release of a portion of the deposited decretal amount — Judgment Debtor's challenge to the award under Section 34 and appeal under Section 37 were dismissed — No stay granted by the Supreme Court — Held, as the challenges to the arbitral award failed and no stay order operates, retaining the security serves no purpose India Law Library Docid # 2454427
(11) MS DEVI ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH AND ORS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 54(11) — Withholding of refund — Statutory requirements — Section 54(11) is founded on two distinct, cumulative ingredients: first, the order giving rise to refund must be the subject matter of an appeal, further proceedings, or any other pending proceedings under the Act; second, the Commissioner must independently form an opinion, after granting a hearing, that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect revenue due to malfeasance or fra India Law Library Docid # 2454428
(12) MS. ASHI AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ petition disposed of with direction to decide representation — Subsequent challenge — Earlier writ petition was disposed of directing the authority to consider the petition as a representation without any adjudication on merits — Impugned rejection order passed pursuant thereto gave rise to a fresh cause of action — Principle of res judicata applies only where an issue has been heard a India Law Library Docid # 2454429
(13) SMT. RANI Vs. SH. RAM SARUP (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 111 — Active confidence — Burden of proving good faith of transaction — Suit for cancellation of Sale Deed executed by elderly, illiterate father in favour of daughter — Daughter resided with father and was in a position of active confidence to exercise influence — Sale Deed was drafted in English while the executant only signed in Hindi and was not conversant with English — Held, the burden lay squarely on the daughter to prove that the deceased father unders India Law Library Docid # 2454430
(14) POONAM TANWAR Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — - Framing of charge — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is correctional and cannot be converted into an appeal on facts — High Court does not re-weigh material or substitute its conclusions merely because another view is possible — Detailed evaluation of evidence or roving inquiry into merits is impermissible at the stage of charge — Interference is warranted only to correct patent illegality, perver India Law Library Docid # 2454431
(15) MANSI BRAR Vs. MOHIT SINGH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(b) — Civil Contempt — False statement and suppression of material facts — Coordinate Bench directed status quo regarding title and possession of properties forming subject matter of MoUs based on the respondent's undertaking — Subsequent disclosures revealed that the properties had already been alienated prior to giving such undertaking — Respondent deliberately suppressed this reality from the Court — Held, tendering false statements or undertakings to d India Law Library Docid # 2454432
(16) M/S METAL CANS COMPANY Vs. BHUVAN MOHAN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 116 — Suit for possession — Judgment on admissions — Landlord-tenant relationship — Estoppel — Appellant claimed perpetual tenancy under Defendant No. 2 — Appellant admitted making direct payments to Plaintiff, corroborated by Defendant No. 2 confirming Appellant became a direct tenant — Direct tenancy established by conduct and admissions — Held, tenant who has attorned and paid rent directly is estopped un India Law Library Docid # 2454433
(17) ZOOM INSURANCE BROKERS PVT LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 1 AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 147, 148, and 148A — Reassessment — Scope of writ jurisdiction — Factual enquiry — Challenge to reassessment order under Section 148A(3) and notice under Section 148 regarding alleged bogus transactions involving middle layer business entities in the insurance sector — Assessee claimed that the receipts were genuine brokerage already accounted for in audited books and tax returns — Held, whether the transaction was spurious resulting in income escaping assessment India Law Library Docid # 2454434
(18) THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ANCHLA @ CHANCHLA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — High Court set aside trial court's conviction finding chain of circumstances incomplete — On appeal by State, held that appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with acquittal if view taken by High Court is plausible and supported by evidence — Unless judgment is perverse, legally erroneous India Law Library Docid # 2454544
(19) MOHD SHAHZAD KAMAL Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — Section 21(4) — Scope of appellate jurisdiction in bail appeals — Admissibility of subsequent events and evidence — Prosecution objected to appellate court considering witness testimonies recorded before the Trial Court after the impugned bail rejection order — Held, the High Court as an appellate forum possesses the jurisdiction to examine subsequent developments, including newly recorded evidence — Where the appeal remained pending for over two years t India Law Library Docid # 2454294
(20) M/S A.G. ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 6(2)(b) — Bar on parallel proceedings — "Same subject matter" — Scope and applicability — Mere commonality of a supplier or an assessee in proceedings initiated by State and Central GST authorities does not attract the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) — Identity of subject matter requires factual verification of specific tax periods, transactions, invoices, precise Input Tax Credit amounts, and allegations in the respective show-cause notices India Law Library Docid # 2454301