(1) NEHA Vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 23-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 126 and 130 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Preventive proceedings — Judicial review at show cause notice stage — Challenge to notice requiring execution of bond for keeping peace — Held, proceedings under Chapter IX BNSS are preventive and based on the Magistrate's subjective satisfaction — High Court in writ jurisdiction will not interfere at the threshold of a show cause notice unless there is complete lack of jurisdiction or t India Law Library Docid # 2456612
(2) IKRAM TAHIR AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 23-10-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 49, 64 and 69 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Sexual exploitation on false promise of marriage — Consensual relationship — Complainant alleged that petitioner-accused sexually exploited her on promise of marriage — Record showed parties were in a consensual relationship and petitioner had proposed marriage, which complainant's family rejected — Relationship failed to mature as families did not agree — Petitio India Law Library Docid # 2456614
(3) MST. THEMU Vs. RAM NATH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 23-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 6 — Accrual of cause of action and right to sue — Plaintiff minor at time of father's death and adverse mutation attestation — Limitation does not run against a minor until majority is attained — Bare denial of title or adverse revenue entry during minority does not constitute a clear and unequivocal threat triggering limitation — Cause of action arose upon subsequent unequivocal denial by defendants after majority — First Appellate Court erred in fixing limitation India Law Library Docid # 2456615
(4) PRESIDENT DOGRI SANSTHA AND ANOTHER Vs. SH. N.D. JAMWAL AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 23-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Infructuous litigation — Efflux of time — Renewal of membership — Suit seeking renewal of membership of a registered society for a fixed three-year term (1993-1996) — Membership period expired long before the decree of the First Appellate Court and over three decades prior to hearing of the second appeal — Held, when the term has expired by efflux of time, no live controversy or effective relief survives — Continuation of the appea India Law Library Docid # 2456618
(5) MOHAN LAXMAN CHAVAN Vs. THE TRANSPORT MANAGER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Standard of proof — Non-mentioning of vehicle registration number — Claimant boarded a crowded municipal bus and was thrown out after it grazed a stationary bus — Claim dismissed by Tribunal for want of registration numbers — Held, strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; claims must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability — A passenger thrown from a moving vehicle cannot be expected to note vehicle registration numbers w India Law Library Docid # 2456420
(6) P.A. INAMDAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A and Section 34 — Causing death by negligence — Drowning incident on college picnic — Quashing of FIR — College students drowned after venturing into sea at a public beach — FIR registered against college trustees, principal, and faculty members — Distinction between civil and criminal negligence reiterated — Held, to establish criminal negligence, gross negligence or culpable neglect must be proved, showing an act that is the direct, proximate, and efficient India Law Library Docid # 2456424
(7) BHAGAT RAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 22-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Judicial review of technical and expert decisions — Bridge extension for flood protection — Petitioners challenged extension of bridge span apprehending damage to properties — State expert committee constituted under court directions confirmed necessity of extension due to increased flood discharge — Held, judicial review is directed primarily at the decision-making process and not the merits of technical decisions — Courts must exercise restraint and India Law Library Docid # 2456607
(8) BALWANT RAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 22-10-2026 Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 — Invalidation of statute — Effect on claims for proprietary rights — The Division Bench in Prof. S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K declared the Roshni Act unconstitutional, illegal, and void ab initio — Held, no legal divesting of State land or vesting thereof in private occupants can occur under the invalidated statute — Consequently, no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State authorities to determine land pri India Law Library Docid # 2456609
(9) BHAGAT RAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 22-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Judicial review — Interference with expert decisions — Consideration of subsequent events — Challenge to extension of bridge span — Court exercising writ jurisdiction can take cognizance of subsequent events having a material bearing on relief claimed — Issues relating to hydraulic design, flood discharge, and waterway adequacy involve technical expertise — High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over technical determinations — Courts must ex India Law Library Docid # 2456611
(10) GULZAR AHMAD VAID Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 22-10-2026 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Preventive Detention — Lack of evidence in solitary FIR — Scope of subjective satisfaction — Individual liberty cannot be curtailed on omnibus allegations or mere apprehension. Detenue was detained under the Public Safety Act based on a solitary FIR wherein investigating agencies had not effected an arrest due to insufficient evidence. Held, detaining an individual on the basis of mere apprehension without any cogent evidence linking him to the alleged India Law Library Docid # 2456616
(11) SHERAZ ANJUM AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF J&K & ORS.[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 22-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14 and 16 — MGNREGA Scheme — Contractual Engagement — Transparent Procedure — Engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks / Supporting Staff prior to circular dated 14.12.2010 — State authorities cannot adopt a pick-and-choose method even in temporary or contractual engagements in the absence of codified guidelines. Public employment mandates inviting applications through open advertisement to ensure equal opportunity and merit-based selection. Any appointment made de India Law Library Docid # 2456617
(12) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ROVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 22-10-2026 Border Security Force Act, 1968 — Section 87 — Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — Rule 129 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 74 and 76 — Interplay between special enactment and general law — Section 87 applies Evidence Act to Security Force Court proceedings "subject to the provisions of this Act" — Under principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, special provisions of BSF Act and Rules prevail — Rule 129 regulates timing of furnishing copies of proceedings, postponing it until confi India Law Library Docid # 2456619
(13) KETAN LALBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Principles for grant — Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, considering the gravity of accusation, criminal antecedents, possibility of fleeing justice, and potential malicious intent to humiliate. Detailed examination of evidence on merits should be avoided at the bail stage to prevent prejudice. Precedent established in landmark Supreme Court rulings in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre India Law Library Docid # 2456301
(14) MOHAMMADHUSSAIN CHUTTANBHAI SHEKH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 195(1)(a)(i) and Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 186 — Bar on taking cognizance — Mandatory statutory requirement — Quashing of FIR — Applicants sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 186, 332, 294(b), 506(1), 506(2) and 114 IPC — Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a written complaint by the concerned public servant or their superior India Law Library Docid # 2456329
(15) KAMLESH HARILAL GORADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) — Disproportionate assets — Scope of interference — High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or act as an auditor — Disputed claims concerning rotated capital, reinvestment of redemption proceeds, and accounting calculations are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial — Upward revision of disproportionate asset figures from FIR to charge-sheet naturally refl India Law Library Docid # 2456343
(16) JIVABHAI DAHYABHAI KHETARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Criminal Jurisprudence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of proof — Chain of circumstances — Accused charged with wife's murder — Material witnesses turned hostile and direct evidence was absent — Prosecution failed to establish motive, accused's presence at the scene, or bloodstains on his clothes — Held, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and form an unbroken chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused while excludi India Law Library Docid # 2456303
(17) STATE Vs. SAYBABHAI SARTANBHAI BARIA AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 304 and 114 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Electrocution by live wire fence — Requirement of proving authorship — Child died due to electrocution from a live wire fence erected along an agricultural field — Prosecution failed to prove who drew the electricity, the source of the power connection, or that the accused had erected or charged the fence — Mere establishment of death by electrocution is insufficient without establishing direct nexus and India Law Library Docid # 2456321
(18) AVINASH BHOSALE AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 2(1)(y), 2(u), and 3 — Proceeds of crime — Scheduled offence — Legitimate banking transactions — Enforcement Directorate alleged that funds disbursed by YES Bank to DHFL via debentures and loans constituted proceeds of crime — Held, official banking transactions between a bank and a corporate entity carried out in the usual course of business cannot be construed as proceeds of crime to constitute money laundering — To constitute proceeds of cri India Law Library Docid # 2456416
(19) SMT. MANTHANA RAMDAS THAKUR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 — Section 5(1) Proviso — Appointment of Shikshan Sevak / Teachers — Mandatory requirement of prior permission — Prior approval or NOC from the Education Officer before issuing an advertisement for recruitment is mandatory and not a mere formality — Statutory obligation to ascertain the availability of surplus candidates before filling vacancies cannot be bypassed — Failure by the Management to obtain prior perm India Law Library Docid # 2456417
(20) SHRI. CHANDRAHAS JETHALAL PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. NIRMALABEN SHAMBHUPRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 21-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Adverse Possession — Permissive User — Burden of Proof — Raising a defence of adverse possession concedes the plaintiff's title and the fact of encroachment. Permissive use is antithetical to adverse possession, as a permissive occupant or relative cannot claim settled or hostile possession against the true owner. Pleading adverse possession does not shift the burden of proof to the true owner. The burden remains on the possessor to establish cont India Law Library Docid # 2456418