(361) MOHD. QASIM Vs. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Preventive detention is intended to prevent a person from committing future acts, not to punish them for past actions — Therefore, detention orders based on stale or remote incidents, such as an FIR from 2023 for an order passed in 2025, are invalid — The grounds for detention must have a live and proximate link to the need for detention, and a mere reference to past criminal activities is insufficient without a India Law Library Docid # 2448735
(362) BASHARAT RAZAQ AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of Proceedings — High Court's Inherent Power — The High Court can quash criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints in its inherent jurisdiction, even for non-compoundable offences, when parties have amicably settled their disputes, especially in matrimonial matters — India Law Library Docid # 2448736
(363) MANDEEP KOUR Vs. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH POLICE STATION UDHAMPUR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Sections 8, 21, 22, 37 — Bail Application — Accused travelling in a vehicle from which contraband was recovered — No recovery from personal possession — Accused is a young woman, married shortly before the incident, and has no prior criminal record — Trial is India Law Library Docid # 2448737
(364) RAMANDEEP SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18, and 37 — Bail application — Commercial quantity — While Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, these restrictions cannot lead to indefinite incarceration of an accused awaiting trial — The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right and must be balanced India Law Library Docid # 2448738
(365) MOHAMMAD SHAFI RESHI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 (J&K) — Section 29(4) — Retirement Age — Urban Cooperative Bank — Petitioner's service conditions governed by statutory rules (SRO 233 of 1988) fixing retirement at 58 years — Board of Management's extension beyond this age was beyond its competence and void — Petitioner had no India Law Library Docid # 2448739
(366) VANDANA AGGARWAL Vs. PRATIK GOYAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — S. 3, Expln. II — Domestic Incident Report — Nature and status of — Held, DIR is a document prepared to assist the Magistrate and cannot substitute or supersede the original complaint under S. 12 — Complaint and DIR must be read cumulatively, not in isolation — DIR has no independent legal existence apart from the complaint India Law Library Docid # 2447729
(367) ANURAG Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 — Rape on false promise of marriage and unnatural sex — Discharge application — Framing of charges sustained — Long-term physical relationship established on alleged false promise of marriage Prosecutrix submitted identity proof during hotel check-ins, and physical relations occurred once more even after she discovered petitioner's marriage to a third party — Petitioner sought discharge claiming a consensual India Law Library Docid # 2447730
(368) PANKAJ PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope of review jurisdiction — Held, very limited — Maintainable only on discovery of new and important matter/evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence, or mistake/error apparent on the face of the record — Error must be self-evident, not one requiring a long-drawn India Law Library Docid # 2447731
(369) ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. PREM NATH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) —Section 96 & Order 41 Rule 27 — First Appeal and Additional Evidence — Application for additional documents allowed but appeal dismissed on merits — Appellants filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record additional documents India Law Library Docid # 2447732
(370) RAVINDER SONI AND OTHERS Vs. SANATAN DHARAM SABHA HARI MANDIR (REGD.)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Interference with concurrent findings of fact — When permissible — The High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal, can only consider and adjudicate upon substantial questions of law arising from the impugned judgment — Where the courts below correctly appreciated facts to observe that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs regarding unauthorized construction India Law Library Docid # 2447733
(371) NIWAS SURENDER KUMAR AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Section 93 — Scope and nature of statutory liability — Onus of proof — Section 93 fastens a statutory strict liability upon the Railway Administration as an insurer, rather than a mere bailee, to compensate for the loss, destruction, damage, or non-delivery of goods carried — The statutory exceptions carved out under the section do not confer blanket immunity — To escape liability, the burden rests squarely upon the Railways to demonstrably discharge India Law Library Docid # 2447734
(372) GORDHAN Vs. RAMCHANDRA S/O GANPAT (DECD.) THR. LRS ARJUN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Suit for declaration, injunction, partition, and mesne profits — Trial court dismissed suit on the ground of res judicata before recording evidence — Held, the issue of res judicata cannot be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 application as it requires India Law Library Docid # 2447767
(373) SONAM JOSHI Vs. VINOD KUMAR SAHNEY AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties in suit for specific performance — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by plaintiff against vendor — Third parties claiming independent title through succession from deceased grandmother, alleging Will set up by vendor forged, sought impleadment India Law Library Docid # 2447810
(374) BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958/Section 360 Cr.P.C. — Applicability barred — Section 20AA of the PFA Act excludes the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 Cr.P.C. to a person convicted under the PFA Act unless he was below 18 years of age at the time of the offence — Where the petitioner was 44 years India Law Library Docid # 2447812
(375) JANPAL SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim petition — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probabilities — Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and negligence is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt — However, this relaxed standard does not dispense with the claimant's obligation to lay a credible factual India Law Library Docid # 2447813
(376) DAKSHINAMOORTHI AND OTHERS Vs. NARAYANASAMY NAICKER(DIED) AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Family Law — Partition — Oral Partition — Burden of Proof — The party claiming an oral partition bears the burden of proving it with cogent and contemporaneous documentary evidence, not merely on the preponderance of probabilities — Mere separate enjoyment for convenience does not equate to a legal India Law Library Docid # 2447854
(377) RUDRAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. GOURAMMA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Hindu Law — Partition — Prior oral/family partition — Proof — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence — Concurrent finding that suit Item 'B' property stood partitioned between propositus and husband of Defendant 3 in 1982, evidenced by mutation entry, subsequent independent sale by allottee, and conduct of parties amounting to implied admission — Plaintiffs' suggestion during cross-examination itself inferred India Law Library Docid # 2448009
(378) SOMESHA B. R AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 528] — Karnataka Police Act — Ss. 79, 80 — Quashing of proceedings — Doctrine of parity — Proceedings against co-accused persons similarly situated already quashed by coordinate Benches on ground of non-obtaining of mandatory permission under S. 155(2) CrPC prior to registration of FIR for non-cognizable offence — Held, petitioners being similarly placed accused entitled to identical relief on doctrine of parit India Law Library Docid # 2448010
(379) ROHAN J. TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — Sections 296, 299 and 301 — Land acquisition for public street — Applicability of Section 299 — If land is occupied by a building, Section 299 is inapplicable — Compensation must be determined under Section 296 read with Land Acquisition Act, 2013. India Law Library Docid # 2448027
(380) PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DBM GEOTECHNICS AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31(1) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Approval of Resolution Plan — Claims not part of the Resolution Plan are extinguished — No proceedings can be initiated or continued for such claims after approval of the plan — This principle applies to statutory dues owed to India Law Library Docid # 2448028