(1) SHAILESH R. GANDHI AND OTHERS Vs. LATE RAMCHANDRA R. GANDHI THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 9, 7 and 16 — Composite family settlement comprising Memorandum of Agreement, Branding Agreement, Registered User Agreement and Irrevocable Power of Attorney — Agreements executed contemporaneously as part of single transaction — Prima facie held, disputes cannot be viewed as arising solely from Registered User Agreement — India Law Library Docid # 2447177
(2) RAMPHAL AHIRWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Judicial review of departmental punishment — Acquittal of delinquent in criminal trial on benefit of doubt — Effect on disciplinary proceedings — Held, acquittal by criminal court does not ipso facto absolve delinquent from liability in departmental proceedings — Standard of proof in the two proceedings being different, findings recorded in departmental enquiry on India Law Library Docid # 2447180
(3) RAMEN ROY Vs. SAMBRIDDHI REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(vi) — "Commercial dispute" — Construction and infrastructure contracts — Development agreement contemplating transfer of ownership rights in addition to construction — Held, expression "dispute arising out of" construction and infrastructure contracts is of expansive connotation and sub-clause (vi) does not use the word "only" to India Law Library Docid # 2447183
(4) SOMANATH JANKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Appeal against conviction — Offences under Ss. 363, 366 and 376(2)(n), IPC read with S. 6, POCSO Act, 2012 — Victim turning hostile — Absence of eye-witness — Held, conviction based mainly on circumstantial and medical evidence, in the absence of any supporting testimony from the victim herself (star witness) and no other India Law Library Docid # 2447184
(5) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. UMESH KUMAR SINGH[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Principles of natural justice — Non-service of second show-cause notice along with copy of inquiry report before imposing major penalty — Held, admittedly, the second show-cause notice along with the inquiry report was not served on the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty — Following Managing India Law Library Docid # 2447185
(6) STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. BISHAL SAHA[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 36A — Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court — Charge-sheet filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of Special Court — Effect — Held, once a Special Court is constituted for an area, it alone has exclusive jurisdiction, India Law Library Docid # 2447186
(7) All NEHU WORKERS’ UNION (ANWU) Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU) AND OTHER[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Regularization of casual/temporary workers — Long years of continuous service (10 to 30 years) without appointment against sanctioned posts or through regular selection process — Availability of vacant sanctioned posts — Held, a blanket denial of consideration for regularization would be unjustified where members of petitioner-Union have rendered long, continuous service and India Law Library Docid # 2447187
(8) STATE OF KERALA Vs. KERALA REVENUE DEPARTMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION KRDSA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction over Administrative Tribunal — Scope — Held, power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum, is not appellate in nature, and can be exercised only where the order of the Tribunal is passed in grave dereliction of duty, in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or reflects India Law Library Docid # 2447188
(9) M.MANUEL, MALABAR FASHION JEWELLERY Vs. MALABAR GOLD PRIVATE LTD.[KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 28(3) — Infringement action between two registered proprietors — Registrations in different classes — Held, S. 28(3) bars an infringement action between two registered proprietors only where both the marks are identical/nearly resembling AND the registrations relate to the same goods or services — Where rival registrations fall in different classes (goods India Law Library Docid # 2447189
(10) SHRI DHANPAT RAI GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI KASHMIRI LAL GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED) REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope of interference by First Appellate Court with findings of fact recorded by Trial Court — Held, where the Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence and recorded cogent, reasoned findings based on documents and admissions on record, the First Appellate Court cannot reverse such findings without independently examining the evidence in its entirety, particularly where the view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible India Law Library Docid # 2447168
(11) RAM ASHRYA UPADHYAY Vs. VIJAY NARAIN UPADHYAY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened in a Second Appeal in the garb of substantial questions of law; a challenge confined to factual findings, without raising any substantial question of law, is not maintainable India Law Library Docid # 2447169
(12) STATE AND OTHER Vs. LALIT KUMAR AND OTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) — Cancellation/setting aside of order granting bail — Scope of interference — A superior court should not normally interfere with an order granting bail, but where the Trial Court has missed extremely important factors while granting bail in an offence of grave nature, the High Court would be justified in setting aside such an order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction India Law Library Docid # 2447170
(13) MR. A.R. ABDUL RAZAK Vs. M/S. ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Limited scope of judicial interference — Court under Section 34 does not sit in appeal over an arbitral award and cannot reappreciate evidence; "patent illegality" must go to the root of the matter and excludes mere erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence — scope under Section 37 is narrower still, confined to examining whether India Law Library Docid # 2447172
(14) ASHIM SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial evidence — Standard of proof — Held, in a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, forming a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excluding every other hypothesis; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, and there is a legal as well as grammatical India Law Library Docid # 2447173
(15) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SARASWATI[KERALA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 29(2) — Customary mode of dissolution of marriage — Family pension to divorced daughter — Held, dissolution of marriage by a registered customary agreement (Annexure A3, 1974) executed in accordance with the practice prevailing among members of the Thiyya community of North Malabar, governed by Marumakkattayam law and having statutory backing India Law Library Docid # 2447174
(16) LODHIYA TUDU AND OTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 430(1) — Suspension of sentence post-conviction — Distinction from pre-trial bail — Held, at post-conviction stage when suspension of sentence is sought, there is a finding of guilt and presumption of innocence does not arise; strong and compelling reasons are required (not merely custody duration), and the court considers only prima facie merits of the India Law Library Docid # 2447175
(17) KRIT YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Section 82 — Powers of State Commissioner — Limited to matters enumerated; no power to adjudicate on title — Held, though State Commissioner has powers of a Civil Court for purposes of investigation, inquiry and proceedings under Sections 195 and Chapter XXVI CrPC, such powers are strictly limited to matters specified in Section 82 and do not extend to India Law Library Docid # 2447176
(18) IN REFERENCE OF : STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KALYAN RAIKWAR[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 29-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 318 — Reference by trial court on ground accused (deaf and dumb) unable to understand proceedings — Scope and duty of trial court before making reference — Held, it is the duty of trial court to make an inquiry whether the accused, despite all endeavours, cannot be made to understand the proceedings — If accused, though deaf and India Law Library Docid # 2447181
(19) GULAB CHAND IVNATI AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES AND HOMEOPATHY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Service Law — Regularization — Daily wage employees — Claim for regular pay scale with retrospective effect from date of initial engagement — Held, benefit of regular pay scale earlier granted to petitioners in 1999 was withdrawn within about a month, finding it to have been extended without following due process, and the said withdrawal India Law Library Docid # 2447182
(20) BHAIRAM Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-06-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173(1) – Appeal against award – Claimant praying for modification of award to direct Insurance Company to pay compensation while recovering it from owner/driver – Insurance Company denied liability on grounds of dishonoured cheque for premium and policy cancellation – Tribunal exonerated India Law Library Docid # 2447133