(361) HARI RAM Vs. CHUNNI DEVI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Interference by High Court — High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law — Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally not interfered with unless perverse, contrary to law, or based on no evidence. [Paras 9, India Law Library Docid # 2444705
(362) RAKESH SHARMA Vs. MANJU DEVI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) — Section 12 — Maintenance — Object of maintenance is to prevent starvation and ensure basic dignity, not to punish the husband or accumulate wealth. India Law Library Docid # 2444706
(363) REKHRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) — Section 19 — Prosecution Sanction — Application of mind — Sanctioning authority acts as a statutory filter, not a court adjudicating culpability — Scope of examination at sanction stage is distinct from trial stage — Authority must examine if material prima India Law Library Docid # 2444707
(364) DYNASTY RESORT Vs. UTTARAKHAND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Section 33(A) — Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 — Section 31(A) — Impugned order directing closure and imposing environmental compensation — Petitioner challenged order on grounds of non-consideration of objections, lack of petitioner's presence India Law Library Docid # 2445156
(365) JAI BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Bail Application — Applicant not named in FIR for actual firing, role of exhortation emerged in subsequent statements, no overt act attributed. India Law Library Docid # 2445157
(366) FAIZAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Bail Application — Circumstantial Evidence — Applicant's involvement in a murder case is based on circumstantial evidence, including the disclosure statement of a co-accused, CCTV footage, and call detail records — The Court noted that the FIR did not initially name the applicant and their role surfaced later — The CCTV footage India Law Library Docid # 2445158
(367) YOUVRAJ AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY’S AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 12-05-2026 National Highways Act, 1956 — Sections 3(A), 3(D), 3(G), 3(H), 3(J) — Land Acquisition — Compensation — Service Road — Petitioners sought compensation for land acquired for widening of National Highway No — 211, including an area designated for a service road — Respondents initially refused compensation for the service road area, arguing it was for public purpose and thus not payable — The Court referred to India Law Library Docid # 2446886
(368) MUKESH PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-B — Dowry Death — Appeal against conviction — Prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of cruelty or harassment soon before death with dowry demand — No proximate link between alleged cruelty and India Law Library Docid # 2443593
(369) MOZIR UDDIN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Inconsistency in victim's statement regarding date/month of incident — While victim alleged sexual intercourse occurred three times, the exact month varied across statements to police, Magistrate, and court testimony — Court acknowledged potential for slight India Law Library Docid # 2443716
(370) SMTI RIDIS AMKHLOO Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 12-05-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Bail Applications — Principles of Bail — The court must maintain a balance between personal liberty and societal interest, considering the facts and circumstances of each case and the role of the accused. The cardinal rule is "bail and not jail", and detention before conviction should only be out of necessity. India Law Library Docid # 2443717
(371) DR. BRIJMOHAN SAPOOT KALA SANSKRITI SEWA SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 12-05-2026 Review Jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal — A review is only maintainable on grounds of discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason — Repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes are not grounds for review India Law Library Docid # 2445056
(372) MANOJ YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 42, 52A — Search and Seizure — Non-compliance with mandatory provisions — Failure to record information in writing or communicate to superior officer before search and seizure, without satisfactory explanation, vitiates the prosecution case. [Paras 32, 62-65, 78-79] India Law Library Docid # 2443664
(373) M/S SAPPHIRE MEDIA LIMITED Vs. NBCC SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Tender and Contract Law — Eligibility Criteria — Bank Solvency Certificate — A tender required a solvency certificate issued within 6 months of the last date for submission — The court had to determine if a certificate issued after the deadline but within 6 months of submission, or one based on older financial data but issued within the timeframe, fulfilled the requirement — The court clarified that the date of issuance of India Law Library Docid # 2443560
(374) STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Challenge to arbitral award — Scope of interference is limited — Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for arbitrator's plausible view — Interference permissible only on grounds stated in Section 34, such as patent illegality or contravention of fundamental India Law Library Docid # 2443561
(375) LALIT KUMAR Vs. E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 12 — Suit for Compensation/Damages, Mandatory Injunction, Declaration and Rendition of Accounts — Dismissal of Suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Appeal against dismissal — The plaint must disclose facts India Law Library Docid # 2443562
(376) SURJEET KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Section 123(c) and 124-A — Untoward incident — Death of passenger during agitation leading to disruption of railway operations — Court held that evidence, including Station Master memo, inquest report, GRP proceedings, and post-mortem, consistently pointed towards a railway accident, and the absence of a scheduled India Law Library Docid # 2443563
(377) ARTI SRIVASTAVA Vs. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Patents Act, 1970 — Section 2(1)(ja) — Inventive Step — Objections lodged by Assistant Controller (AC) regarding lack of inventive step are not sustained by the respondent (Controller General of Patent) in this appeal, as one of the cited prior art documents (D1) was published after the filing date of the subject application and therefore India Law Library Docid # 2443564
(378) BHOLA MAHTO AND OTHERS Vs. CHOLA RAM MAHTO AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Hindu Law — Succession — Property of deceased Hindu male dying before 1956 — Re-marriage of widow — Consequences — Rights of daughters — A Hindu male's self-acquired property or property obtained in partition devolved by inheritance, not survivorship, to his daughter in preference to collaterals, even if succession opened India Law Library Docid # 2443702
(379) SRI SATYA SUNDAR MAHARATHY AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 — Section 19-A — No Objection Certificate (NOC) for alienation of private deity property — Rejection of application for NOC by Commissioner of Endowments was not sustainable as the Commissioner failed to ascertain necessity of alienation and protection of deity’s interest, despite no India Law Library Docid # 2443818
(380) THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HARAPRIYA BEHERA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 11-05-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 173(1) — Motor Accident Claim — Appeal against award of compensation by Tribunal — Insurer challenging quantum of compensation — Held, compensation is to be based on loss of dependency, future prospects, and non-pecuniary losses, after deducting income tax and ex-gratia death benefits. India Law Library Docid # 2443819