(781) 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
(782) 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
(783) 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
(784) 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
(785) 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
(786) 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
(787) 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
(788) 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
(789) 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
(790) 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
(791) 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
(792) 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
(793) 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
(794) 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
(795) 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
(796) THE DECCAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Interim Injunction — Scope of Injunction Order — Subject-matter of Suit — Petitioner challenged Collector's order directing removal of gates installed on an access road, claiming protection under an ad-interim injunction granted in a pending civil suit — Held, the pleadings and Petitioner's own affidavit-in-reply in the civil suit explicitly conceded that the access road and gates did not form part of the suit property — The ad-interim injunction granted in the India Law Library Docid # 2452289
(797) MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. SUNIL V. MAGAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 25-O and 36 (Maharashtra Amendment) — Closure of undertaking — Maintainability of reference at the instance of individual workmen — Existence of recognized union — Held, the statutory scheme under Section 25-O stands on a distinct footing. Section 25-O specifically permits "representatives of the workmen" and "any workman" to oppose closure and seek review. The general bar under Section 36 restricting representation solely to a recognized union does not p India Law Library Docid # 2452290
(798) MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. SUNIL V. MAGAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 25-O, 25-O(5) and 36(1) (Maharashtra Amendment) — Closure of undertaking — Maintainability of reference at the instance of individual workmen — Bar under Section 36 proviso — Employer contended that individual workmen could not pursue reference once the recognized union withdrew its review application — Held, the statutory scheme under Section 25-O constitutes a distinct procedure permitting "any workman" or "representatives of the workmen" to oppose clos India Law Library Docid # 2452291
(799) GAUTAM KHANDJUA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 227, 397 and 401 — Discharge — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — While considering a discharge application, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously weigh probabilities and evidence to evaluate the likelihood of conviction — Court must proceed on the assumption that prosecution material is true and determine if prima facie grounds exist to proceed against the accused — Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court to apprecia India Law Library Docid # 2452292
(800) ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. RANGI LAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Suit for possession and permanent injunction by father against sons — Registered sale deed and father's absolute ownership repeatedly admitted in written statement and reply — Prior framing of issues constitutes no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 if no genuine triable issue survives — When the title of the plaintiff is unequivocally admitted and defendants fail to demonstrate any legally reco India Law Library Docid # 2452293