(181) ROHTASH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope and maintainability of review jurisdiction — Review is permissible only upon discovery of new and important evidence not producible despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or reasons analogous thereto — Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment, re-appreciate evidence, or re-hear a matter merely because another view is possible — A decision, even if erroneous on merits, cannot be corrected under review India Law Library Docid # 2452184
(182) PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 318(4) and 61(2) — Anticipatory Bail — Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy — Liability of property dealers — Complainant was fraudulently induced into purchasing an industrial plot for over Rs. 12.50 crores by concealing pending litigation and competing claims — Petitioner, a property dealer, sought pre-arrest bail claiming a limited intermediary role — Held, property dealers cannot be absolved of the India Law Library Docid # 2452185
(183) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. POONAM AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 168 — Compensation — Conventional heads — Loss of consortium versus loss of love and affection — Claimants sought enhancement towards spousal, parental, and filial consortium — Held, consortium is a recognised conventional head, whereas a separate award under "loss of love and affection" is impermissible — However, principles cannot be applied mechanically to award double compensation for the same non-pecuniary loss — As the Tribunal had already awarded India Law Library Docid # 2452187
(184) STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NEETU DAHIYA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 and Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99 — Res Judicata — Execution proceedings — Objections by State claiming decretal land was part of Khasra No. 735 — State had previously instituted independent civil suits seeking to set aside the decrees on identical grounds, which were dismissed on merits after trial, and upheld up to the Supreme Court — Held, the State cannot re-agitate the same claim through execution objections — Section 11 CPC squarely bars relitigati India Law Library Docid # 2452167
(185) KAUNTO AND ANOTHER Vs. BHINDRO[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13 and 29(2) — Customary divorce — Pleadings and proof — Under Hindu law, marriage is a sacrament and divorce is generally not recognized except where sanctioned by custom or statutory provisions — Prevalence of a customary divorce contrary to general law must be specifically pleaded and established by cogent evidence — Execution of an alleged divorce deed or Talaknama on stamp paper without pleading and proving an applicable custom does not sever the marit India Law Library Docid # 2452238
(186) MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BULLU RAM AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Sections 19 and 19A — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 27 — Rescission of voidable contract — Locus standi of legal heir — Right to challenge instrument — The option to avoid a contract procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is exercisable by the legal representatives of the executant, provided the deceased had not affirmed the contract or lost such right by acquiescence during their lifetime. A legal representative qualifies as a "person inter India Law Library Docid # 2452239
(187) CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Public Interest Litigation — Maintainability — Abuse of judicial process — Personal and professional rivalry — Petitioner-Association filed PIL seeking vigilance proceedings and blacklisting against a rival contractor — Private respondent demonstrated that Association's President had pending cheque bounce litigation under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with his son, and President's close relatives were competing bidders in contested tenders — Held, PIL jurisdiction is meant for vin India Law Library Docid # 2452240
(188) STONEYS RESTAURANT AND ANOTHER Vs. MOHINDER SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Subordinate Court hours — Adverse order passed beyond prescribed hours — Permissibility — Ordinary court hours of Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh are from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. — Trial Court closed accused's right to cross-examine complainant at 4:30 p.m. on account of non-appearance — Held, proceedings can take place only during prescribed court hours unless parties agree otherwise — Litigants cannot legitimately be expected to appear India Law Library Docid # 2452241
(189) STATE OF H.P. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Principles reiterated — An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused — Where two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should refrain from disturbing the finding of acquittal — Appellate court will interfere only if the trial court's decision is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal India Law Library Docid # 2452244
(190) TEJ SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 147 — Dishonour of cheque — Compounding of offence during revisional proceedings — Accused was convicted under Section 138 and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation, affirmed in appeal — During pendency of revision, parties compromised the matter through a one-time settlement and the accused paid the full settlement amount to the respondent-Bank — Held, in view of Section 147 of the Act and established precedent, there is no legal impediment to India Law Library Docid # 2452245
(191) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. LT. COL. SUNNY THOMAS (RETD.)[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Armed Forces Pension — Disability Pension — Attributability and Aggravation — Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, Regulation 423 — Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, Rules 5, 9, 14 — Respondent was discharged with 30% disability from Primary Hypertension, assessed by Release Medical Board as aggravated by military service — Adjudicating authority denied claim — Held, when no disease is noted at entry, a member is presumed to be in sound health and subseq India Law Library Docid # 2452256
(192) JOYTHISH. S Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 — Sections 15 and 16 — Maintainability of writ petition — Alternative statutory remedy — Impugned order passed by the Special Tahsildar under Section 15 of the KLC Act is appealable under Section 16 — Petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy and did not establish any violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental rights — Where a statute prescribes a spe India Law Library Docid # 2452257
(193) SHYAMALA C Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Preventive Detention — Successive Writ Petition — Maintainability — While a successive habeas corpus petition simpliciter may lie on fresh grounds, a petition seeking habeas corpus predicated on challenging the validity of a detention order stands differently — Once the detention order has been upheld and attained finality in earlier writ proceedings, the same Court cannot re-examine its validity even if new grounds are raised — Principles of res judic India Law Library Docid # 2452258
(194) STATE Vs. MUNNA KUMAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(f) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 428 — Quantum of Sentence — Aggravating versus Mitigating circumstances — Offence of rape committed in 2008 against a four-and-a-half-year-old child — Pre-2013 statutory framework prescribed minimum ten years rigorous imprisonment extendable to life — Convict sought leniency citing clean antecedents, lapse of time, and family responsibilities — Held, absence of criminal antecedents cannot outweigh the extreme India Law Library Docid # 2452261
(195) VIKRAM SACHDEVA Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR DHINGRA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 25B(8), Proviso — Eviction petition — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court — Scope and ambit — Held, revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller merely because an alternative view is possible — Interference is warranted only where the impugned order suf India Law Library Docid # 2452263
(196) KRISHNA REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Vs. MR. GURCHARAN SINGH SYAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay in filing — Substantial justice versus technical considerations — The expression "sufficient cause" is elastic and intended to enable courts to advance substantial justice by disposing of matters on merits. Courts should adopt a rational, common-sense, and pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one. An appellant ordinarily does not benefit from delaying an appeal, and there is no presumption of mala fides or culpable negligence. Delay of India Law Library Docid # 2452265
(197) SYED SHABIR AHMED Vs. U. T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 10-09-2026 Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010 — Sections 2(zzc), 2(zze) and 3 — Building permission — Land recorded as "Gair Mumkin Khad" — Statutory vesting in Government — Petitioner sought building permission for residential construction on land recorded as "Gair Mumkin Khad" — Rejection by Development Authority — Under Section 3, water sources vest in the Government, extinguishing private proprietary rights — Sections 2(zzc) and 2(zze) define a "khad" as a water cou India Law Library Docid # 2452272
(198) MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Preventive Detention — Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Distinction between "Public Order" and "Law and Order" — Criminal activity prejudicial to specific individuals or statutory violations fall within the purview of a "law and order" problem, whereas "public order" is disturbed only when the act affects the public at large — Resort to preventive detention laws is impermissible and illegal when th India Law Library Docid # 2452276
(199) MS. ANJUM SALAM DIN AND ANOTHER Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 10-09-2026 Housing and Urban Development — Allotment of Plot — Non-delivery of possession due to supervening impossibility — Land acquired by Housing Board for housing colony subsequently occupied by Army and Kashmir University South Campus — Entire proposed land under occupation, making development of colony impossible — Predecessor of petitioners deposited consideration pursuant to allotment order in 1988 but possession never delivered — Housing Board offered refund without interest citing circumstantial India Law Library Docid # 2452277
(200) ABDUL MAJEED MIR Vs. HABIBULLAH TANTRAY[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 10-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings — Disputed questions of fact — Petitioner sought quashing of Section 138 complaint on the ground that the cheque was issued in connection with an unlawful transaction and lacked a legally enforceable debt — Held, the contentions raised by the petitioner fall strictly with India Law Library Docid # 2452278