(561) ICICI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. ERA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-02-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 — Sections 7 and 60(2) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Initiation against principal debtor and guarantor — Co-extensive liability — Creditor can initiate CIRP against both the principal debtor and guarantor simultaneously, and also file claims in the CIRP of both. India Law Library Docid # 2440042
(562) SUHAS CHAKMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-02-2026 Prisoner Rights — Human Dignity and Rights — The strength of a constitutional democracy is tested not merely by the liberties it guarantees abstractly, but by the manner in which it treats those at its margins — Prisons, though instruments of lawful confinement, are not spaces where constitutional values cease to operate — The guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India India Law Library Docid # 2440043
(563) MEDION BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 — Objection to execution of compromise decree — In execution petition, primary onus lies on decree-holder to show that judgment debtor has willfully ובdisobeyed conditions of decree — Appellants had failed to establish violation of compromise decree by respondents — In absence of cogent proof of such violation, execution cannot be sustained — Burden India Law Library Docid # 2440374
(564) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. KHEM RAJ VERMA AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Administrative Law — Delay and Laches — Writ petitions challenging Tribunal orders — Union of India filed writ petition after a significant delay of over two years from the Tribunal's decision — Held, vested rights accrued in favour of the litigant and such delayed petitions are not maintainable — Courts cannot permit free play to challenge orders whimsically after unreasonable delay without justifiable reasons — India Law Library Docid # 2440375
(565) STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS Vs. JAGDEV SINGH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Service Law — Counting of Contract Service for Pensionary Benefits — Employees sought to count contract service rendered from 2004 to 2014 for pensionary benefits — The High Court allowed this claim based on a previous judgment which had attained finality — The employees restricted their claim to India Law Library Docid # 2440376
(566) ANKUSH THAKUR Vs. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) — Section 3(1) — Order of detention — Challenge to — Non-application of mind by detaining authority — Petitioner detained for three months based on two FIRs under NDPS Act — Time gap of over one and a half years between second FIR and detention order — Detaining authority merely repeated India Law Library Docid # 2440377
(567) SHIV DUTT SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equal treatment — Denial of revised pay to contractual employees continuing on strength of court orders is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioners, who are contractual employees continuing their service on the strength of court orders, are performing the same duties as other contractual employees and therefore cannot be denied the revised India Law Library Docid # 2440407
(568) KULTAR SINGH Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR (MARKETING) COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (Himachal Pradesh) — Section 93 and Section 49 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Appeals before Appellate Authority — Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to proceedings under Section 93 of the Act — Held, provisions of Limitation Act are not excluded from applicability to India Law Library Docid # 2440408
(569) JYOTI Vs. RAKESH DHIMAN[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9 — Transfer of proceedings — Wife's convenience is primary consideration — Court should prefer wife's convenience unless strong reasons exist against it — Inconvenience due to distance and financial constraints are valid grounds for transfer. India Law Library Docid # 2440409
(570) RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Financial Rules (FR) — Rule 22(1)(a)(1) and Rule 22(1)(a)(2) — Pay fixation upon promotion — When a government servant is appointed to a post with duties and responsibilities of greater importance, their initial pay should be fixed by giving one increment from the post they were promoted from — If the new post does not involve duties of greater importance, the benefit of an additional increment under FR India Law Library Docid # 2440410
(571) MANOJ KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonor of cheque — Criminal revision petition filed challenging conviction and sentence — Accused deposited entire compensation amount with courts — Respondent-bank had no objection to compounding the offence subject to release of deposited amount — Court India Law Library Docid # 2440411
(572) RAM HIRDAY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/34 — Murder with common intention — For conviction under Section 34 IPC, prosecution must establish a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds among accused — Mere presence at the scene ofoccurrence or possession of a weapon does not automatically establish common intention — To invoke Section 34, it must be proven that the criminal act was committed by several persons in India Law Library Docid # 2440780
(573) RAMCHANDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/34 — Murder — Appeal against conviction and sentence for life imprisonment — Appellants convicted by Sessions Judge for murder of two deceased — Held, evidence of eyewitnesses coupled with medical report sufficiently established guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt — Contentions regarding doubtful place of incident, non-recovery of weapons, and contradictions in India Law Library Docid # 2440781
(574) KISHAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with Section 34 — Murder — Conviction — Appeal against — Dismissed — Sole surviving appellant convicted for murder along with other co-accused (now deceased) — Prosecution case based on testimony of informant, brother of deceased — Eyewitnesses named in FIR turned hostile — Appellant's counsel argued that conviction based solely on interested testimony of informant and hence unsafe — Court held that conviction can be based on testimony of solitary witnes India Law Library Docid # 2440782
(575) SMT. SEEMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201, 120B — Criminal Appeals against conviction for murder, causing disappearance of evidence, and criminal conspiracy — Circumstantial evidence — Homicidal death — Recovery of weapons of assault on pointing out by accused — Illicit relationship alleged between accused — Defence plea of false implication and no eyewitness — Hostile witnesses — Application of Section India Law Library Docid # 2440783
(576) SHRI SUKHNANDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 26-02-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation for death of foetus — Deceased was travelling with a reservation ticket, fell from the train while boarding, and died during treatment carrying an 8-9 month old male foetus, which also expired — Tribunal granted compensation of Rs — 8,00,000/- for the deceased mother but not for the foetus — Held, an unborn child aged five months onwards in the mother's womb till its birth can be treated as a child in existence — The unborn child, w India Law Library Docid # 2440784
(577) ANKIT TOMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-02-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Rape on promise of marriage — Voraussetzungen — Court can quash FIR if allegations, even if taken as true, do not constitute a recognisable offence or if the process of criminal investigation is being abused — Essential elements for rape on promise of marriage are absence of consent due to inducement, misrepresentation, India Law Library Docid # 2440929
(578) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UNIT 1 AND ANOTHER Vs. PATEL SHANKARBHAI GOBARDAS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay in filing first appeal — Delay of 2014 days in filing appeal — Reasons for delay were administrative procedures and consultations between departments — Such reasons, including bureaucratic inefficiency and procedural red tape, are no longer acceptable explanations for condoning delay, especially after a significant period has elapsed since the judgment and an execution warrant was issued. India Law Library Docid # 2440945
(579) HIMMATBHAI BHIKHABHAI VAGHANI AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 — Section 5(3) — Suit for removal of obstruction to pathway — Cause of action arose much earlier — Suit filed after delay of more than two years — Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to entertain suit filed beyond six months from date of cause of action — Rejection of suit by Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector on ground of limitation is correct — Petition dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2440946
(580) VALAND SHANABHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI AND OTHERS Vs. NAVINBHAI GOVINDBHAI VALAND (NAI) AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-02-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Application for rejection of plaint was rejected by the trial court — The High Court held that a plaint can only be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law — The court must read the plaint as a whole, and cannot reject it in part — If any part of the plaint is maintainable, the entire plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold — The High Court reiterated that the remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 India Law Library Docid # 2440947