(61) 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
(62) 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
(63) 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
(64) 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
(65) 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
(66) 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
(67) 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
(68) 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
(69) 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
(70) 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
(71) 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
(72) 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
(73) 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
(74) 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
(75) THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. SUSHMA SHARAN[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Service Law — Recruitment — Reservation — Caste certificate — Mention of husband's name instead of father's name — Candidate applied for Assistant Professor post under Scheduled Caste category submitting caste certificate issued by Sub-divisional Officer bearing husband's name — Commission shifted candidate to unreserved category for not mentioning father's name — Held, the advertisement contained no stipulation requiring the caste certificate to mandatorily contain the father's name — Both fath India Law Library Docid # 2458008
(76) VIJAI KUMAR RAI @ VIJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 — Murder — Conflict between ocular and medical evidence — Ocular witnesses consistently deposed that accused assaulted deceased with an iron rod and mosquito-net stick, expressly denying the use of any sharp-edged weapon — Medical evidence clearly established that deceased sustained incised wounds caused by a sharp cutting weapon, explicitly ruling out an iron rod or blunt object — No nexus established between the alleged India Law Library Docid # 2458014
(77) M/S RAMESH ALUMUNIUM INDUSTRIES Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — State Financial Corporations — Auction sale of mortgaged unit — One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme — Enforceability — Petitioner defaulted in loan repayment, leading to the auction and transfer of possession of the industrial unit to a third party — Petitioner sought restoration of the unit under the OTS Scheme, 2019 — Held, mere submission of an application under the OTS Scheme along with a token bank draft does not confer an enforceable right to seek r India Law Library Docid # 2458015
(78) SMT. MANDAKINI EKNATH RENUSE Vs. M/S. NAVKETAN BUILDERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6(2)(a) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 3 — Summary suit for possession — Computation of six-month limitation period — Cause of action arises from actual date of dispossession and not date of knowledge — Plaintiff pleaded merely learning of trespass in June 2012 without specifying the exact date of dispossession — Trial Court erred in equating date of knowledge with date of dispossession to hold suit within limitation — Compliance with Section 3 Limitation Ac India Law Library Docid # 2457984
(79) MUKESH CHUNNILAL BHATIA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 227, 228 and 397 — Framing of charges during pendency of revision against rejection of discharge — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — Trial Court framed charges and examined nine witnesses while revision was pending without stay — Accused cannot be discharged once charges are framed under Section 228, as trial must culminate in conviction or acquittal — High Court must act circumspectly considering stage of trial, invested judicial time, and gravit India Law Library Docid # 2457985
(80) SHRI AVINASH KONDIRAM WAGH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE IN-CHARGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026 Service Law — Compassionate appointment — Classification of post — Pay-scale versus specific departmental Government Resolutions — Petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds and confirmed in service — Show-cause notices issued seeking cancellation on ground that deceased fathers held posts carrying pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, classifying them as Group-B posts — Held, post of Group Instructor carrying such pay-scale was specifically classified as Group-C (Technical) under subsequent India Law Library Docid # 2457990