(141) BIMAL PODDAR @ BIMAL KUMAR PODDAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Bihar Finance Act, 1981 — Sections 49(2)(b) and 49(3)(d) — Tax evasion — Fraudulent Form-F and suppression of sales — Conviction upheld — Accused, partner of a firm, submitted fraudulent and forged statutory Form-F, undervaluing entries and misdeclaring high-taxed vanaspati/dalda as mustard oil to evade commercial tax — Material exhibits and transaction sheets established deliberate discrepancies to evade sales tax — Plea of non-examination of second Investigating Officer and lack of proof regar India Law Library Docid # 2457959
(142) ARVIND LAL GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty — Revisional jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of guilt — Petitioner-husband challenged his conviction for subjecting his wife to physical assault, mental harassment, and monetary demands — Contention that acquittal of co-accused in-laws warranted petitioner's acquittal rejected — Trial court and appellate court concurrently recorded findings of guilt based on specific acts of cruelty and neglect by the husband — High Court declined to interfere with co India Law Library Docid # 2457960
(143) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMGARH AND OTHERS Vs. JANKI MAHTO AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 — Re-determination of compensation — Plea of limitation — Deemed admission — Landowners claimed filing Section 28-A application within the statutory three-month period, but it was lost by the Land Acquisition authority — State failed to specifically deny the averment in its show-cause reply — Held, facts not specifically denied are deemed admitted under Order VIII of CPC — State cannot derive India Law Library Docid # 2457961
(144) PACHHU SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Death of victim prior to trial — Appreciation of ocular evidence — Where the prosecutrix died before trial and could not depose, the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial and ocular witnesses. The sole alleged eye-witness gave highly contradictory statements regarding hearing hue and cry, failing to disclose the incident to villagers, and letting the accused escape. Other witnesses offered conflicting and hearsay versions. In the absence of re India Law Library Docid # 2457962
(145) GANGADHAR RAJWAR Vs. RAM PRASAD RAJWAR[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Oral relinquishment — Validity in partition — Property acquired by mother devolved upon her death on three legal heirs: two sons and one daughter — Plaintiff contended that daughter orally relinquished her share — Held, an oral plea of relinquishment cannot be accepted as relinquishment constitutes a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, mandatorily requiring registration — In the absence of a registered instrument or a judicia India Law Library Docid # 2457963
(146) SHIV BACHAN PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 and Section 141 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Common intention — Deceased assaulted when intervening to rescue father after an altercation during a marriage ceremony — General and omnibus allegations against surviving appellants without establishing specific overt acts — Primary blow attributed to deceased co-accused — Prosecution failed to establish that surviving appellants shared common intention or constituted an unl India Law Library Docid # 2457965
(147) PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Settlement between parties — Inherent powers of High Court — Dispute between petitioners and informant was private in nature involving no element of public interest — Parties entered into an amicable settlement supported by affidavits — Held, inherent power under Section 528 can be exercised to quash proceedings where offences are not heinous, the dispute is predominantly private, and the possibility of c India Law Library Docid # 2457966
(148) TARABATI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. MD. SEIKH HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim petition — Standard of proof — Summary proceedings under beneficial legislation — Preponderance of probabilities vs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Tribunal dismissed claim petition treating the matter as a criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt — Held, Claims Tribunal deals with summary claims under beneficial social legislation where the accepted standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Tribunal India Law Library Docid # 2457967
(149) SUMAN KUMAR MANDAL Vs. KUMARI RASHMI SINHA[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19(1) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96 — First Appeal — Appellate jurisdiction and perversity — An appeal under Section 19(1) lies both on facts and on law and is a rehearing of the matter, permitting the High Court to reappraise, reappreciate, and review the entire evidence — A finding is perverse if arrived at by ignoring relevant material, considering irrelevant material, or if it outrageously defies logic — Subordinate court findings can be rever India Law Library Docid # 2457968
(150) RADHA GOVIND UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Radha Govind University Act, 2018 — Section 43 — Appointment of Administrator — Mandatory statutory procedure — The State Government issued a show cause notice granting only 15 days to the petitioner-University to reply instead of the mandatory statutory period of 45 days under Section 43(1) — Held, Section 43 is a self-contained code providing a specific mechanism for appointing an administrator — When a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner India Law Library Docid # 2457974
(151) COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Maintainability of writ petition challenging reference — Competence of referring authority — Reference made by State Government challenged for want of jurisdiction — Held, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to examine whether the authority making the reference was competent as the "appropriate Government" — The Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction strictly from the refe India Law Library Docid # 2457975
(152) SRI. SANJAY VARMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Factories Act, 1948 — Section 2(l) — Definition of "worker" — Post-1976 amendment — Inclusion of contract labour — Workmen engaged by a sub-contractor sustained burn injuries during revamp and upgradation of refinery units — Occupier contended that victims were not factory employees and unit operations were temporarily shut down — Held, post-1976 amendment, the definition of "worker" expressly includes persons employed directly or through any agency, including a contractor — Work of revamping an India Law Library Docid # 2457978
(153) K. V. N. GOVINDARAJU Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 190(1)(b) and 482 — Cognizance — Lack of reasons — Higher Court supplementing reasons — An order taking cognizance based on a police report lacking explicit reasons does not invariably require remand to the Court of first instance. The High Court or Sessions Court examining the order is fully empowered to inspect the charge-sheet and supplement reasons to sustain the cognizance, provided sufficient material exists. Assigning such reasons does not m India Law Library Docid # 2457979
(154) MISS. IRAM PATHAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 177, 178(c), 179 and 182 — Territorial jurisdiction — Offences under Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code — Digital communication and continuing offence — Accused persons communicated with complainant via matrimonial site and social media, allegedly demanding money, issuing threats, and causing loss of job and reputation in Bengaluru — Contention that Bengaluru police lacked jurisdiction as money was allegedly extorted in Mumbai rejecte India Law Library Docid # 2457980
(155) NIRMALA JOHNY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ petition — Delay and laches — Challenge regarding coastal erosion caused by Vizhinjam Seaport construction — Project commenced earlier and impacts were allegedly felt from 2016, but writ petition was preferred in 2022 — Maintainability upheld — Affected local residents had actively pursued representations before the State Government, which positively responded by issuing Government Order dated 06.10.2022 constituting an Expert Committee to study c India Law Library Docid # 2457981
(156) RAJNI KUMARI Vs. SAURABH KUMAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-a) — Transfer of matrimonial proceedings — Suppression of material facts — Petitioner-wife sought transfer of divorce case from Patna to Begusarai citing distance of 110-120 kilometres and apprehension of threat to safety — Petitioner suppressed the fact that she had herself instituted multiple cases at Patna and had resided there — Non-disclosure of relevant and material facts assumes significance while a India Law Library Docid # 2457999
(157) ARJUN PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. ARVIND KUMAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Hindu Law — Adoption — Proof of adoption — Burden of proof — Pre-1956 adoption — Title suit for partition — Plaintiffs claimed their father was adopted by common ancestor, which defendants denied — A person seeking to displace natural succession by pleading adoption must strictly prove its factum and validity by clear, cogent, and consistent evidence — Although direct evidence of ceremony may not be required for ancient adoptions, long-standing recognition and family conduct must be established India Law Library Docid # 2458001
(158) BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Restoration of possession — Disputed questions of title — Pendency of civil suit — Petitioner sought restoration of possession of land and dwelling house — Rival parties asserted conflicting claims of title based on oral partition versus registered sale deeds and revenue records — Title suit already pending before competent Civil Court — Held, extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to conduct roving inquiries into complex India Law Library Docid # 2458005
(159) SHANKAR PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 — Section 2(v) — Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 — Retrospective effect from 05.10.1991 — Definition of 'Teacher' — Exclusion of Demonstrators — Petitioners claimed status and pay scales of teachers based on redesignation as Demonstrators prior to 05.10.1991 — Held, the 2012 Amendment Act restricted the definition of 'Teacher' and provided saving only for Demonstrators appointed before 18.09.1975 against posts sanctioned before 01. India Law Library Docid # 2458006
(160) SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21 and 22(1) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 47 and 48 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 50 — Legality of arrest and remand — Non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest — Prejudice-oriented test — Accused was a named offender fully aware of allegations, had sought anticipatory bail, applied for recall of non-bailable warrant, and was represented by counsel opposing remand — Mere procedural omission in serving written gr India Law Library Docid # 2458007