(581) SARASWATI Vs. AMIT[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 15-09-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 28 — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Dissolution of marriage — Subsequent reconciliation in appeal — Decree of divorce granted by Family Court challenged by wife — Parties arrived at mutual settlement during appellate proceedings and expressed unequivocal desire to reunite — Held, matrimonial litigation concerns human relationships and law must facilitate reconciliation where parties voluntarily choose reunion — Subsequent events an India Law Library Docid # 2453520
(582) DECEASED HAMID KHA THROUGH LRS. RAFIKA BEE AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT SANGH THROUGH MAHAPRABANDHAK AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 15-09-2026 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 10 and Section 12 — Limitation period — Claim petition filed after six years — Employee died on duty due to cardiac respiratory failure — Claim filed by legal representatives under Section 12 after more than six years against statutory limitation of two years — Appellants argued correspondence with employer caused delay — Held, the first representation was submitted to the employer five years after death and claim petition was filed after six years — In India Law Library Docid # 2454017
(583) SANJEEV KUMAR MEHRA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 15-09-2026 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Sections 4 and 6 — Jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) versus Local Committee (LCC) — Appellant, a Class-I officer and regional head of office, challenged ICC's jurisdiction contending complaint should be referred to LCC under Section 6 — Held, LCC under Section 6 is constituted where an establishment has less than ten workers or where the complaint is against the employer himself — Merely India Law Library Docid # 2454023
(584) ATUL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 15-09-2026 Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 — Rule 43 — Government accommodation — Retention on posting to non-family station — BSF officer transferred to a Left Wing Extremism-affected district designated as a non-family station sought retention of residential accommodation at his previous posting — Rejection of request — Held, Rule 43 explicitly contemplates retention of government accommodation at the last place of posting for up to a maximum period of three years up India Law Library Docid # 2454029
(585) MAPLE OVERSEAS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PAWAN GARG Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 15-09-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 111(1), 111(2)(f) and 111(2)(g) — Procedure before Appellate Tribunal — Dismissal for default and restoration — Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to appellant's non-appearance — Scope of power — Appellate Tribunal is empowered under Section 111(2)(f) to dismiss proceedings for default and under Section 111(2)(g) to set aside such dismissal orders — Instead of rushing directly to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi India Law Library Docid # 2454031
(586) WELSPRING UNIVERSAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Central Excise Act, 1944 — CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 — Rule 5 — Judicial Discipline — Adjudicating authority confirming demand ignoring CESTAT order — Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued during pendency of Department's appeal against a refund sanction order — Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Department's appeal, but CESTAT subsequently set aside that order and upheld refund entitlement — Adjudicating authority erred in confirming demand by relying on the set-aside Order-in-Appeal — An adjudica India Law Library Docid # 2452266
(587) SKY HIGH AGRO EXPO PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 28A, 28A(3) and 54 — Re-determination of compensation — Subsequent enhancement by Appellate Court — Appellants sought further enhancement under Section 28A(3) based on High Court judgment in Jamna after initially receiving re-determined compensation based on Reference Court award in Kailashwati — Held, entertaining an earlier application under Section 28A based on a Reference Court award does not bar seeking further re-determination upon compensation being e India Law Library Docid # 2452320
(588) KANCOR INGREDIENTS LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 2(ix)(k), Section 7 and Section 16(1) — Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 32(e) — Delhi Government Notification dated 20.09.1985 — Misbranding due to labelling deficiency — Absence of batch or lot number — Requirement of prior written warning — Food sample was found misbranded solely due to omission of batch number on label, with no allegation of adulteration — State policy mandated issuing a written warning for a first-time te India Law Library Docid # 2452321
(589) WELSPRING UNIVERSAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Central Excise Act, 1944 — CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 5 — Judicial discipline — Binding effect of appellate orders — Adjudicating authority confirming demand based on set-aside order — Refund granted to Petitioner was appealed by Revenue and parallel demand notice was issued — Commissioner (Appeals) set aside refund, but CESTAT overturned that decision and upheld refund entitlement — Adjudicating authority subsequently confirmed recovery demand relying on the set-aside appellate order — Hel India Law Library Docid # 2452323
(590) GUJARAT LAGHU UDYOG SAHKARI SOCIETY LTD. THRO KRISHNAKANT SAHU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 372 Proviso, Section 378 — Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 413, Section 419 — Appeal against acquittal — Status of complainant as victim — In an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is a victim having suffered the direct impact of cheque dishonour — Complainant is entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code before the India Law Library Docid # 2452324
(591) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATHA NANAJI BHARWAD AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of appellate interference — Presumption of innocence — Reiterated that an appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate evidence, but must recognize the double presumption of innocence reinforced by an acquittal — If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal — Interference is justified only where the trial court's approach is vitia India Law Library Docid # 2452325
(592) SANJAY BALWANT NIKAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 482 and 227 — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Scope of quashing and discharge — Preclusion of mini-trial — Inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. At the stage of considering discharge or quashing criminal proceedings where a charge-sheet has been submitted, the Court cannot embark upon a mini-trial or evaluate the probative worth of evidence. A strong s India Law Library Docid # 2452326
(593) KUTUBUDDIN FAKRUDDIN FARUQUI AND OTHERS Vs. THE GUJARAT STATE WAQF BOARD AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Waqf Act, 1995 — Sections 3(i), 50 and 63 — Nature and status of "Mujawar" — Distinction between Mujawar and Mutawalli — A Mujawar is merely a servant or caretaker of a shrine, possessing no proprietary, title, or hereditary rights in Waqf property — Office of Mujawar is ordinarily non-hereditary under Mahomedan Law — Caretaker cannot prescribe the mode of succession or unilaterally assume the office of Mutawalli via internal family resolutions — Fraud vitiates all solemn acts — Self-proclaimed India Law Library Docid # 2452327
(594) BHOORI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Section 124A — Bona fide passenger — Non-recovery of journey ticket — Initial burden of proof — The initial burden upon claimants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not unduly onerous. Mere absence or non-recovery of a journey ticket from the person of the deceased is insufficient by itself to negate bona fide passenger status. Where the claimant deposed on affidavit that the deceased had informed her of purchasing a ticket for the journey, the initi India Law Library Docid # 2452328
(595) MOHAMMAD SAQIB@ SAQIB IFTEKAR Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43D(5) — Interplay between right to speedy trial and statutory restrictions on bail — Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail for violation of Article 21 — Pre-trial incarceration cannot assume the character of punishment due to mere passage of time — When there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and India Law Library Docid # 2452329
(596) SHANTI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 — Rules 7 and 8 — Administrative Instructions — Overriding effect of statutory rules — Claim of petitioner for patta rejected on the strength of an administrative clarification dated 21.08.1980 debarring married daughters — Sustainability — Rules 7 and 8 contain no restriction barring married daughters from claiming Nautor land — Settled law that executive orders or administrative clarifications cannot override, amend, or substitute statutory rules having India Law Library Docid # 2452456
(597) SANGITA ANAND Vs. SANDHYA TOMAR AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 147 and 149 — Contract of Insurance — Commencement of policy and insurer liability — Accident occurred on 09.08.2011 — Premium was deposited on 09.08.2011 at 8:05 AM, but policy schedule specifically stipulated coverage from 10.08.2011 — Merely depositing premium constitutes an offer and does not ipso facto conclude an unconditional contract of insurance — Contract commences only from the effective date and time specified in the policy — Insurer is not liable India Law Library Docid # 2452457
(598) BRUNO DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 229 — Anticipatory bail — Tendering forged e-court fee — Advocate tendered invalid e-court fee in a civil suit on behalf of a bank, defrauding the court and causing loss to the State exchequer — Plea of acting in good faith without dishonest intention cannot be adjudicated at the pre-arrest bail stage — Custodial interrogation held indispensable to unearth the con India Law Library Docid # 2452543
(599) M/S CUBES ENTERTAINMENTS Vs. BIG TREE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 14A and Order 7 Rule 1(c) — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Injunction suit against unknown defendants ('John Doe' proceedings) — Refusal to number suit for want of address — Permissibility — Plaintiff sought removal of online film reviews posted by unidentified persons, arraying them as 'John Doe' — Trial court refused to number the suit for failure to furnish defendants' physical address — Held, insisting on an address for unidentifie India Law Library Docid # 2452557
(600) M/S SOUBHAGYE ROAD BUILDERS AND OTHERS Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 14-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope of review jurisdiction — Error apparent on the face of record — Principles reiterated — A constitutional court may review its order if it finds violation of constitutional rights, contravention of express statutory provisions, or breach of natural justice — Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, an error must be easily discernible on a mere reading of the record and not one that must be fished out or searched for — It must be an inadvertent, manifes India Law Library Docid # 2452558