(181) S.R. MURUGAN @ NAVEEN S.R. PRABHU Vs. P. RAJENDRAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 29-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 10 and 20 — Sale Agreement — Execution by defendant admitted — Receipt of substantial advance payment acknowledged — Plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform contract — Trial court erred in not granting specific performance India Law Library Docid # 2443263
(182) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT-EXPORT) Vs. M/S APP ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Customs Act, 1962 — Sections 111(d), 111(o), 112(a), 125 and 28 — Notification No — 32/97 — Duty-free import for job work and re-export — Importer failed to comply with conditions, specifically by misrepresenting the export scheme code on shipping bills — Held to be a wilful attempt to evade duty and deceive the government, not an India Law Library Docid # 2443264
(183) LAKHI PAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Recovery of weapon of assault — Admissibility of evidence regarding recovery of a knife at the pointing out of an accused, who confessed to its concealment, is admissible. India Law Library Docid # 2443346
(184) M/S. VIROLA INTERNATIONAL Vs. SMT. SUNITA SACHDEVA AND OTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of proceedings — Power to transfer suit, appeal or other proceeding for ends of justice — Exercise of power is discretionary and must be judicious — Not to be invoked for mere convenience or subjective apprehension — To be exercised only where there is reasonable and bona fide apprehension of injustice or to preserve fairness and credibility of adjudicatory process. India Law Library Docid # 2443347
(185) A.S.LINESWALA Vs. MIRCH MASALA RESTAURANT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Sections 7(1) and 16 — Offence of selling adulterated food — Complaint against partnership firm and its partners — Prosecution failed to prove that the partners were in charge of the business or responsible for the conduct of the business of the partnership firm — Essential India Law Library Docid # 2443390
(186) LALJIBHAI BHAGABHAI @ LALUBHAI BHAGABHAI PATEL Vs. CHANDRIKABEN[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 115 and Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) — Civil Revision Application — Rejection of Plaint — Suit for declaration and permanent injunction — Daughter claiming share in ancestral properties against father — Trial court rejected defendant's application for plaint rejection — Revision India Law Library Docid # 2443392
(187) DIPIKA VINODRAI MARU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing FIR — Application for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 504, 506(2), 507, 114 of IPC — Allegations of matrimonial dispute, threat and abusive language — Court must consider if allegations, taken at face value, constitute an offence or are absurd and improbable, leading to malicious prosecution — FIR quashed as it appeared India Law Library Docid # 2443393
(188) SMT. MARRY USHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — Section 24 — Detention Order — Offence committed below 18 years — A detention order passed by considering offences committed when the detenu was below 18 years of age, and not tried as an adult for heinous offences, is vitiated and cannot be sustained. India Law Library Docid # 2443446
(189) THE COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTING THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF HUBLI-DHARWAD Vs. PRADEEP[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 29-04-2026 Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 — Sections 3, 11, and 66 — Suit for declaration and injunction challenging a resolution to construct a community hall on suit property — Declaration of property as "slum area" under Section 3 was made in 1977 — However, notifications under Section 11 declaring it as "slum clearance area" were quashed by a previous High Court order as affected India Law Library Docid # 2443540
(190) MITHILESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 — Section 9, 10(2), 10(3), 11(1), 15(1) — Suit for declaration and quashing of order — Petitioner aggrieved by land declared surplus and not being granted one unit of land — Subsequent applications and writ petitions filed by petitioner for retaining land of choice and to be granted a unit — High Court directs authorities to dispose of India Law Library Docid # 2443667
(191) SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Service Law — Fixation of Salary and Pension — The petitioner sought payment of arrears of salary and revision of pension for her deceased husband, who worked as a Grade III laboratory boy — The core issue was whether his salary should be fixed based on the fifth pay scale, as recommended by the State Government, and whether pensionary benefits should be revised accordingly. India Law Library Docid # 2443764
(192) SANJAY VIDROHI @ SANJAY KUMAR VIDROHI Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Res judicata and estoppel — Previous orders of the High Court and Supreme Court addressing issues of illegal construction and its regularization were final and binding, preventing re-agitation of the same disputes. India Law Library Docid # 2443765
(193) SANJAY KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS Vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Service Law — Regularization of Contractual Employees — Long-term engagement of teachers for over twenty years on contractual basis, despite intermittent breaks, indicates that the work is permanent in nature and the employees are essential for the functioning of the schools — The Damodar Valley Corporation, as a statutory body and India Law Library Docid # 2443766
(194) NIRANJAN KARPARDAR @ NIRANJAN KAPARDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26(1) — Conviction for offences under — Appeal against — Prosecution story of recovery of restricted arms vs — arms sent for forensic test — Discrepancy found — No sealing of arms at the place of occurrence — Seizure list witnesses not supporting the factum of seizure — Conviction set aside for want of material evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2443767
(195) VISHUNDEO PRASAD YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. GULTAN PUJHAR AND OTHERSv[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Admission of second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law — The High Court is not required to delve into the evidence in a second appeal. India Law Library Docid # 2443768
(196) RINZING SHERPA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(l) — Rape of a specially-abled woman — Consideration of victim's testimony and corroborative evidence — While a victim with intellectual and developmental disabilities may not articulate the incident coherently, her testimony, if it inspires judicial confidence, holds legal weight, India Law Library Docid # 2443714
(197) TT ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER CUM SECRETARY, ENERGY & POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Arbitration Clause — Writ Petition maintainability — A writ court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction even if an arbitration clause exists in the contract; however, factual disputes are best resolved through arbitration rather India Law Library Docid # 2443715
(198) TNGEN MURUH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Appeal against conviction for murder — Appellants convicted by Sessions Judge and sentenced to life imprisonment — Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration between eye-witness testimonies and medical evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2443722
(199) SRI SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 29-04-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125(4) — Maintenance — Wife living separately by mutual consent — Onus of proof — Petitioner failed to prove that parties were living separately by mutual consent — The proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed for divorce by mutual consent, was dropped — The averments in the joint petition, in absence of a final decree and India Law Library Docid # 2443835
(200) RAVINDER KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. STATE C.B.I.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Burden of proof on prosecution — The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt — Where the evidence of the complainant is inconsistent regarding the amount demanded, lacks corroboration, and is contradicted by other evidence, the prosecution's case is weakened — The court found that the complainant's own t India Law Library Docid # 2442777