(1) 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
(2) 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
(3) 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
(4) 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
(5) 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
(6) 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
(7) 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
(8) 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
(9) 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
(10) 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
(11) 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
(12) 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
(13) 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
(14) SANTOSH GURUNG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) — Sections 4 and 6 — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Standard of proof — Complete chain of circumstances — Primary prosecution evidence relied upon to establish guilt, including the last seen theory, recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, FSL report, DNA test results, and statement India Law Library Docid # 2454545
(15) THE PRESIDENT MATCH COMPANY AND OTHERS Vs. MS. SRI BALAMURUGAN MATCH WORKS AND ANOTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Trademark infringement suit — Explaining origin and continuity of business — Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to plead details of partnership, commencement of business by father, trademark licence, and subsequent transfer — Defendants contended it altered nature of suit and introduced new cause of action — Held, amendment merely explained genesis of business and basis of plaintiff's claim over registered mark — Foundation India Law Library Docid # 2454563
(16) R. UMMUSAFIA Vs. A. SOUNDARAJAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 56, 58 and 59 — Amendment of plaint at appellate stage — Suit for permanent injunction dismissed — In appeal, plaintiff sought amendment to declare Power of Attorney forged and Sale Deed null and void — Defendant had disputed title in written statement based on registered documents — Limitation for declaration of title or forgery/cancellation of instrument is three years from accrual of right or knowledge — Plaintiff India Law Library Docid # 2454565
(17) VELMURUGAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392 read with Section 397 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Robbery — Proof of recovery — Fact discovered — Complainant initially stated in the complaint that her gold chain went missing, but improved her testimony at trial alleging the accused snatched it while she was unconscious. Prosecution also submitted conflicting property descriptions between the recovery mahazar and Form 91. Furthermore, the recovery from the accused's goldsmith shop was not shown to India Law Library Docid # 2454568
(18) WARIS KHAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Scope of supervisory jurisdiction — Grounds of interference — High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the court below — Power under Article 227 is discretionary and exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their authority, or in cases of patent perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or absence of jurisdiction — District Judge did not co India Law Library Docid # 2454549
(19) STATE OF M.P. Vs. BHERA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 50 — Suo moto revisional jurisdiction — Maintainability against unappealed orders — Orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector setting aside summary deletion of respondents' names from revenue records attained finality as State preferred no appeal or revision — Revisional authority initiated suo moto revisional proceedings based on an administrative complaint and reversed those orders — Held, suo moto revision cannot be exerc India Law Library Docid # 2454551
(20) PREETIBALA Vs. KANTABAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 34 and 35 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Bar on Civil Court to grant injunction — Plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in the mortgaged suit property and sought to restrain recovery proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act — Held, while a suit for declaration of title may be maintainable before a civil court, the second part of Section 34 explicitly de India Law Library Docid # 2454552