(401) PREM MEHANI AND ANOTHER Vs. HARISH BATRA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Rejection of plaint — Clever drafting — Limitation bar — Suit challenging consent decree — Plaintiffs claimed rights in suit property under a 2001 family settlement but took no legal steps despite knowledge of the Agreement to Sell in 2006 and a pending specific performance suit in 2008 — Consent decree in the specific performance suit passed in 2012 — Plaint filed in 2013 was a clever attempt to bypass limita India Law Library Docid # 2452919
(402) RITES LTD Vs. ESPAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 20 — Contract Law — Tender / Pre-award Stage — Forum Selection Clause — Enforceability — Plaintiff challenged forfeiture of earnest money deposit — Trial Court held Delhi Courts had territorial jurisdiction based on Clause 13(b) of tender document conferring jurisdiction on New Delhi Courts — High Court held that Clause 13(b) formed part of Special Conditions of Contract, intended to govern execution and performance of contract upon award — Because plaintiff' India Law Library Docid # 2452920
(403) M/S HI-TECH GEOSYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S SHUBH CONSTRUCTION CO.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Contract Act, 1872 — Section 55 — Delay in performance — Time whether essence of contract — Work Order stipulated completion of construction within 40 days, but work took nearly a year — Parties continued execution and performance of the contract beyond the stipulated period without termination, repudiation, or objection — Mere failure to adhere to the initial time limit does not bring the contractual arrangement to an end when time was not of the essence and performance was mutually extended — India Law Library Docid # 2452924
(404) THE STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs. RAJENDER SINGH AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Acquittal by the Trial Court strengthens the accused's presumption of innocence, creating a double presumption — Appellate Court is slow to interfere and will not substitute its own view merely because an alternative view is plausible — Interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or demonstrably unsustainable — Where the Trial Court's view is a possible and p India Law Library Docid # 2452927
(405) PROSECUTRIX R Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(w) and 8(c) — Delay in raising caste allegations — Framing of charge — Minor victim subjected to gang rape — Mere non-mentioning of caste allegations in initial FIR or Section 164 CrPC statement and six-month delay do not justify discarding SC/ST Act provisions, as traumatic bodily offences affect recollection — Unlike Section 3(1)(r), Section 3(1)(w) merely requires knowledge of victim's caste identit India Law Library Docid # 2452930
(406) PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SPECIAL SECY. GOVT. OF U.P. CIVIL SECE[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 17-09-2026 Service Law — U.P. Sainik Schools (Ministerial Establishment) Service Rules, 1970, Rules 4, 12, 18, 20 — Nature of Appointment — Unilateral conversion of regular selection into contractual engagement — Post of House Matron advertised against sanctioned cadre carrying prescribed pay scale — Petitioner duly selected by Selection Committee, but appointment letter stipulated consolidated salary with subsequent artificial breaks — Held, where recruitment is conducted for a sanctioned cadre post under India Law Library Docid # 2452997
(407) HARSHIT MANSUKH PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Preliminary Inquiry — Adherence to time limits — Delay attributable to applicant — Police authorities are empowered to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed before registering an FIR. Where the delay in concluding the preliminary inquiry arose because the applicant sought time and failed to submit requisite account records for nearly two months, the inquiry cannot be termed contrary to the time-bound framework India Law Library Docid # 2453037
(408) STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS Vs. PARGI MANUBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Service Law — Parity in service benefits — Similarly situated employees — Single Judge directed State to extend benefits to respondents on par with petitioners of an earlier petition, which decision had attained finality up to Supreme Court — State failed to show any distinction between respondents and petitioners of the earlier petition, having not disputed their identical status before Single Judge — Held, when employees are identically situated, State cannot deny them identical benefits — Sin India Law Library Docid # 2453038
(409) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HITESH BHUDABHAI MACHHI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 306 and 107 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 113A and 113B — Cruelty and abetment of suicide — Acquittal confirmed — Allegations of mental and physical harassment for money — Evidence showed deceased and husband resided separately near complainant, contradicting claims of torture by in-laws — No evidence of cruelty, instigation, or proximate quarrel — Material indicated deceased was under depression due to medical expenses for critically ill child — FIR lod India Law Library Docid # 2452980
(410) VIPUL NATVARBHAI SOLANKI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 227 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) — Quashing petition — Finality of discharge order — Trial Court partly allowed discharge applications by discharging applicants under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) while rejecting discharge under Sections 7 and 12 — Applicants did not challenge the rejection, allowing the order to attain finality — Contentions regarding lack India Law Library Docid # 2452981
(411) GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MINOR ROHIT MOHANBHAI MARVADI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 173 — Rash and negligent driving — Evidentiary value of police investigation records — State Transport bus hit the deceased's motorcycle from behind — Driver claimed the deceased was negligent, but police charge-sheeted the bus driver and he was found guilty in departmental proceedings — Bus driver's testimony was that of an interested witness — Police investigation records, including FIR and charge-sheet, constitute valid, admissible, and reliable pri India Law Library Docid # 2452982
(412) SUPERSCAN IMAGING CENTRES Vs. LH OF NISHANTBHAI SURESHBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Employees Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — Murder as an "Accident" — Murder simpliciter vs. Accidental murder — Distinction explained — If the dominant intention of a felonious act is to kill a particular person, it is murder simpliciter; however, if the killing was not originally intended and was caused in furtherance of another felonious act, such murder is an accidental murder — Where an on-duty ward boy was murdered by intruders while they looted money from the employer's clinic, the India Law Library Docid # 2452983
(413) SUPERSCAN IMAGING CENTRES Vs. LH OF NISHANTBHAI SURESHBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Employees Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — Personal injury by accident — Murder as an accident versus murder simpliciter — Test of dominant intention — If the dominant intention of a felonious act is to kill a particular person, such killing constitutes murder simpliciter and falls outside the statute — Conversely, where the murder was not originally intended but was committed in furtherance or accomplishment of another felonious act, such as robbery or loot, it is an accidental murder — India Law Library Docid # 2452985
(414) SANT RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Possession taken prior to acquisition — Damages / Use and occupation charges — State utilised appellant's land for road construction in 1990 without initiating acquisition proceedings, issuing Section 4 notification only in 2007 — Following established Supreme Court precedents, when a landowner is dispossessed prior to formal acquisition, they are entitled to compensation for the intervening period — Appellant held entitled to additional interest by way of damag India Law Library Docid # 2453050
(415) ABDUL HAMID AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 17-09-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 — Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) — Ranbir Penal Code, 1889 — Section 120-B — Quasi-judicial authority — Erroneous exercise of statutory power versus criminal misconduct — Distinction — Attestation of mutations by Settlement Officer during settlement operations — Investigating agency cannot substitute its interpretation of statutory provisions to criminalize an adjudicatory act — In absence of independent material indicating bribery, dishon India Law Library Docid # 2453057
(416) M/S JAI SUKRALA TRADING CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 17-09-2026 Letters Patent Appeal — Clause 12 of Letters Patent — Maintainability — Meaning of "Judgment" — Interlocutory order — Single Judge modified interim order, permitting authorities to proceed with tender finalisation subject to the outcome of the writ petition, without conferring equity on the successful bidder — Held, a discretionary interlocutory order modifying interim relief, which keeps the petition alive and leaves substantive issues open without determining vital rights with finality, India Law Library Docid # 2453058
(417) SURJIT SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 and Section 372 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and an order of acquittal reinforces this presumption — When two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must prevail — An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal — Acquittal rec India Law Library Docid # 2453061
(418) MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Pre-notification possession — Damages for use and occupation — Entitlement to additional interest — Possession of land was taken over by the State for road construction in 1990, whereas the notification under Section 4 was issued in 2007 after court intervention — Where a landowner is dispossessed prior to initiation of formal acquisition proceedings, they are entitled to damages for the deprivation of use and usufruct — In the interest of justice, additional i India Law Library Docid # 2453072
(419) SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED Vs. M/S SUNOXX INTERNATIONAL[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 126 and Section 127 — Unauthorized use of electricity — Mandatory requirement of inspection by Assessing Officer — Assessment initiated solely on audit report — Assessing Officer issued provisional and final assessment orders based solely on an audit party report without inspecting the consumer's premises or equipment — Held, proceedings under Section 126 must commence with an inspection of the premises by an Assessing Officer and a recorded finding of unaut India Law Library Docid # 2453073
(420) THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. MAYANK MRINAL AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 17-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — State as litigant — Parity with private litigants — Held, consideration for condonation of delay does not vary depending upon whether the applicant is the Government or a private party — Preferential indulgence can no longer be accorded to the State on grounds of bureaucratic complexity or administrative inertia — Procedural red-tapism and administrative lethargy cannot automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 — Public India Law Library Docid # 2453132