(1) JYOTSNABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. BRIJESHSINH KISHORSINH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 4 — Registration Act, 1908 — Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed — Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation — Presumption of validity — Plaintiffs alleged that defendants fraudulently obtained signatures on a sale deed under the guise of an agreement to sell — Held, registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of valid execution — Heavy burden rests upon challenger to displace presumption with cogent evidence and material particular India Law Library Docid # 2450469
(2) SADDAM @ ATAUR REHMAN IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, Section 304 Part II, Section 299 & Section 300 — Re-appreciation of evidence — Nature of offence — Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC — The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for causing the death of an elderly victim using a wooden danda — On appeal, held that the alleged weapon was not a deadly weapon and six out of seven injuries were simple contusions/abrasions — The post-mortem India Law Library Docid # 2449996
(3) M/S TATA STEEL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-08-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) — Section 74 — Invocation of extended period of limitation — Requirements — Allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts — Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued for FY 2018–19 to 2020–21 invoking Section 74 based on audit objections regarding mismatch of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and short payment of tax — Assessee challenged India Law Library Docid # 2450097
(4) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-08-2026 Customs Act, 1962 — Section 45(1), Section 45(3) & Section 13 — Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 — Sections 42 & 43 — Declaration of Major Port Trust as "custodian" under Customs Act — Scope of saving clause vs. non obstante clause — Commissioner of Customs issued Notification declaring Major Port Trust (MbPT) as custodian under Section 45(1) and holding it liable for duty on pilfered goods under Section 45(3) — High Court quashed the notification holding it ultra vires — Held, India Law Library Docid # 2450098
(5) HARAKCHAND RAVJI SHAH AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL BOTADKAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 8, Section 24 — Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 — Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Section 33 — Applicability of transfer power to Small Causes Court at Mumbai — Section 8 CPC expressly extends Section 24 CPC to Presidency Small Cause Courts — In Greater Mumbai, absence of Civil Judge Senior Division courts renders Section 33(2)(a) transfer provisions under Rent Act inapplicable — Application under Section 24 CPC is the legitimate remedy to India Law Library Docid # 2450186
(6) SHAH CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD. Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — Section 351 — Unauthorized construction — Claim of protection based on pre-1962 datum line — Failure of proof — Petitioner challenged notices and demolition orders issued by Municipal Corporation for unauthorized structures — Petitioner claimed protection alleging structures existed prior to 1st April 1962 datum line — Court held petitioner failed to produce any sanctioned plan or acceptable document demonstrating existence, nature, or area of origi India Law Library Docid # 2450196
(7) SHIVMOORAT KUSHWAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Railway Board Circular No. 11 of 2022 — Clause 8.1 — Interpretation of contract duration — Contract awarded for operation and management of AC Waiting Hall for five years — Contractor sought extension for another five years citing heavy investment and invoking Clause 8.1(v) — Held, contract falls under Clause 8.1(iii) prescribing a 5-year duration and not Clause 8.1(v) dealing with Pay-&-Use Toilets — Contractor cannot claim extension as a mat India Law Library Docid # 2450197
(8) QWIK SUPPLY CHAIN PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CRPL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 7 and 11 — Arbitration clause — Interpretation — Use of word "may" — Commercial Agreement contained detailed multi-tier dispute resolution mechanism culminating in binding arbitration — Respondent contended clause was non-mandatory due to word "may" — Held, word "may" cannot be read in isolation — Reading clause as a whole showed a completed arrangement for arbitration — Word "may" grants option to either party to initiate agreed arbitration proce India Law Library Docid # 2450198
(9) BHAGWAT GOVINDRAO ZAMBRE AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Selection Process — Indefeasible right to appointment — Right of selected candidates — Unfilled vacancies — Settled legal position that inclusion in a merit list or participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed — The State is under no legal obligation to fill all advertised vacancies — Unless recruitment rules specify otherwise, the employer has the right not to fill up vacancies or cancel recruitment for va India Law Library Docid # 2450175
(10) RANJIT KUMAR MAHAL Vs. SRICHARAN PATRA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of appellate jurisdiction - Principles summarized - Presumption of innocence of accused is reinforced upon acquittal - Where trial court's view is a possible and plausible view based on evidence, appellate court cannot overturn acquittal merely because another view is possible - Interference warranted only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or clear unreasonableness - H India Law Library Docid # 2450421
(11) UTKAL KHADI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 72 - Maintainability of writ petition - Alternative remedy - Existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 72 of the Registration Act is not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where the matter involves a pure question of law regarding the statutory powers and jurisdiction of the Registering Officer without entering into any disputed questions India Law Library Docid # 2450425
(12) NANDAKISHORE ALIAS NANDAKISHORE PARIDA Vs. RAJKISHORE PARIDA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 427 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Appeal against acquittal - Offence of mischief - Non-examination of material independent eye-witnesses - Complainant alleged that accused forcibly ploughed his land and destroyed paddy seedlings - Prosecution relied on interested witnesses while independent eye-witnesses present at the spot were withheld - Station diary entry/FIR lodged at police outpost was neither produced nor proved - Prosecution failed to India Law Library Docid # 2450379
(13) STATE OF ODISHA Vs. SANJEET DASH @ BANKU[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 300 and 302 - Murder of wife - Proof of guilt - Accused inflicted 49 stab wounds on his wife with a knife - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony of minor injured daughter, voluntary extra-judicial confession made to mother, matching fingerprint report on recovered knife, blood-stained apparel, and post-crime abscondence - Defense plea of lack of motive or fatal single injury rejected - Inflicting multiple injuries all over the body demonstrates clear intenti India Law Library Docid # 2450389
(14) UMASHANKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Bail - Offence involving commercial quantity - Ground of long custody and delay in trial - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be read alongside and not in displacement of Section 37 NDPS Act mandate - Length of period spent in custody or commencement of trial are not by themselves persuasive grounds to grant bail without satisfying the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 India Law Library Docid # 2450400
(15) B. TIRUPATI RAO AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Offence of intentionally insulting SC/ST member - Property dispute background - Material discrepancies in prosecution witnesses' evidence regarding exact utterances - Offence is not established merely because victim belongs to Scheduled Caste without specific intention to humiliate on caste grounds - Abuse hurled during longstanding land litigation does not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) - Co India Law Library Docid # 2450411
(16) GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD Vs. GUJARAT LAXMI MAJOOR KAMGAR SHAHKARI MANDLI LTD[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Proof of damages — Evidentiary value of unilateral correspondence — Construction contract — Respondent-contractor claimed damages for idle staff, machinery, and extra work based on unanswered letters issued to appellant — Trial Court decreed suit relying on such correspondence — Held, claims for special or general damages cannot be awarded without substantive proof of actual loss or injury suffered — Unilateral unanswered letters do not constitute cogent evidence to e India Law Library Docid # 2450472
(17) HIRENBHAI CHIMANBHAI RAJYAGURU AND OTHERS Vs. ABDULMAHAMAD JUMMAHASAN MASKATWALA AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Execution of Compromise Decree — Land Acquisition Compensation — Premature Execution — Scope of Executing Court's power — Land acquired during pendency of suit challenging sale deed — Parties entered into compromise decree where defendant agreed to pay Rs.1.60 crores plus interest to plaintiffs upon receiving acquisition compensation — Defendant received around Rs. 8.48 crores but failed to pay — Executing Court dismissed execution application India Law Library Docid # 2450481
(18) PRANAVBHAI AMBALAL PATEL S/O SHRI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Customs Act, 1962 — Section 110(1) — Search and Seizure — Distinguishing Detention under Panchnama from Statutory Seizure — Proper officer detained imported vehicle vide Panchnama without passing a formal seizure order or order under provisos to Section 110(1) recording reasons to believe goods were liable to confiscation — Held: Detention and seizure are distinct — Panchnama cannot substitute a statutory seizure order — Customs authorities cannot indefinitely hold goods under the guise of deten India Law Library Docid # 2450486
(19) ARJAN @ ASHOKBHAI DHANJIBHAI SHAIKH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 r/w Sections 34 and 120B — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Murder — Unexplained delay in lodging FIR — Falsity and embellishment — Incident occurred at 8:30 PM, but police was informed of a mere scuffle at 10:50 PM without naming assailants — Inquest panchnama was drawn between 00:45 AM and 01:45 AM in presence of complainant and relatives, yet no names, weapons, or details of dumper were disclosed — FIR registered at 03:15 AM — Inordinat India Law Library Docid # 2450495
(20) VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 25-08-2026 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 109 and 110 — Mutation based on disputed Will — Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities — Administrative nature of functions — Petitioners sought mutation based on an unregistered Will, while respondent asserted a subsequent unregistered Will — Tehsildar allowed mutation based on one Will — Held, revenue officers performing functions under Sections 109 and 110 perform administrative, not judicial, functions — Tehsildar lacks jurisdiction to decide va India Law Library Docid # 2450522