(701) DEVI DAYAL TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Retired Employee — Deduction from Gratuity — State directed recovery of excess payment and interest from petitioner's gratuity through a Pension Payment Order post-retirement, owing to erroneous pay fixation — No show-cause notice or hearing was afforded — Held, recovery of excess payment from a retired employee due to erroneous fixation of pay is impermissible as laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih — Impugned recovery quashed and respondents di India Law Library Docid # 2452078
(702) KALPANA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 10-09-2026 Service Law — Contractual Appointment — Stigmatic Termination — Regular Departmental Enquiry — Principles of Natural Justice — Petitioner employed on contractual basis as Feeding Demonstrator was terminated for unauthorized absence and gross negligence without issuing charge-sheet or holding enquiry — Held, an order of termination casting stigma and attributing misconduct impacts future prospects of an employee — Even for contractual employees, an order founded on misconduct cannot be passed sim India Law Library Docid # 2452081
(703) BHAI SAHAB LODHI Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 10-09-2026 Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 — Appointment of Panchayat Karmi — Selection Criteria — Voting versus Merit — Gram Panchayat appointed respondent No. 5 on the basis of majority voting, disregarding merit — Prescribed minimum qualification under Policy dated 13.08.2007 was Class 10th marks — Petitioner obtained 67.60% marks whereas respondent No. 5 secured 62.31% marks — Held, appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi cannot be made by voting or majority resolution India Law Library Docid # 2452088
(704) SMT. INDIRA BHALAVI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Service Law — Recovery of excess payment — Retired employee — Principles governing impermissibility of recovery — Impugned recovery was initiated post-retirement for excess salary paid between 1993 and 2015 due to wrong pay fixation without any fraud or misrepresentation by petitioner — State argued petitioner was a Class-II employee (Lecturer) and excluded from the dictum of Rafiq Masih — Held, recovery from retired employees and where excess payment spans over five years prior to the recovery India Law Library Docid # 2452106
(705) SMT. SMITA DANDOTIYA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Maintainability of writ petition in service matters — Locus standi — Petitioner-wife challenged the order revoking the suspension of respondent-husband and sought directions regarding his departmental enquiry — Held, a stranger to the service has no locus standi to challenge the appointment, suspension, or service conditions of an employee — Even though the petitioner is the wife of the employee, she remains a stranger to his service jurisprudence — Pu India Law Library Docid # 2452149
(706) VICTIM X Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Minor rape victim — Right to reproductive choices and bodily integrity — Pregnancy of 23 weeks and 3 days: Medical Board approved termination at the medical college level, and written consents were furnished by the minor victim and her parents. Reaffirming that reproductive choices and bodily integrity are intrinsic facets of Article 21, the Court permitted termination of pregnancy, directing expert medical s India Law Library Docid # 2452156
(707) ROSHAN SINGH NEGI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Service Law — Recovery of excess pay — Retired Class-III employee — Petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Class-III) — Respondents ordered recovery of Rs. 1,90,009/- post-retirement alleging erroneous pay fixation from 1996 to 2015 — No fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to the employee — Held, recovery of excess pay mistakenly made to Class-III employees, particularly after retirement and pertaining to periods in excess o India Law Library Docid # 2452160
(708) UMESH KANTILAL PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 187(3) (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 167(2)) — Default Bail — Statutory period for filing chargesheet — Scope of inquiry — The phrase "the investigation relates to an offence" under Section 187(3) BNSS signifies that the period for filing the chargesheet is not determined solely by the penal sections enumerated in the FIR. The court must look beyond mere nomenclature and examine the substance of allegations and materials on record India Law Library Docid # 2451972
(709) SULEMAN Vs. JUBER AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Standard of proof — Burden on claimant — Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and evaluated on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, the absence of rebuttal evidence by the respondents does not relieve the claimant of the initial burden to establish foundational facts — Establishing serious injuries through medical records does not, by itself, prove the India Law Library Docid # 2452164
(710) JYOTI SAREEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Income-tax Act, 1961 — Section 148, Section 148A, and Section 151A — Faceless Assessment Scheme — Competence of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers — Challenge to reassessment notices issued by JAOs instead of faceless assessing officers chosen via automated allocation — Constitutional courts across jurisdictions previously held that post-enactment of Section 151A and schemes framed thereunder, notices under Section 148 must be issued facelessly through automated allocation, rendering JAO notices India Law Library Docid # 2452178
(711) BOWRING INSTITUTE Vs. J.GIRIDHAR[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Sections 19, 20 and 21 — Scope and jurisdiction of Lok Adalat — Conciliatory role — Lok Adalats possess purely conciliatory functions and have no adjudicatory or judicial powers. Upon reference of a case, only two courses are open: make an award if a compromise is reached and signed by the parties, or return the record to the referring court if no settlement is achieved. The Lok Adalat cannot pass a hybrid order or assume civil court powers to permit withdr India Law Library Docid # 2452180
(712) ROHTASH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope and maintainability of review jurisdiction — Review is permissible only upon discovery of new and important evidence not producible despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or reasons analogous thereto — Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment, re-appreciate evidence, or re-hear a matter merely because another view is possible — A decision, even if erroneous on merits, cannot be corrected under review India Law Library Docid # 2452184
(713) PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 318(4) and 61(2) — Anticipatory Bail — Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy — Liability of property dealers — Complainant was fraudulently induced into purchasing an industrial plot for over Rs. 12.50 crores by concealing pending litigation and competing claims — Petitioner, a property dealer, sought pre-arrest bail claiming a limited intermediary role — Held, property dealers cannot be absolved of the India Law Library Docid # 2452185
(714) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. POONAM AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 168 — Compensation — Conventional heads — Loss of consortium versus loss of love and affection — Claimants sought enhancement towards spousal, parental, and filial consortium — Held, consortium is a recognised conventional head, whereas a separate award under "loss of love and affection" is impermissible — However, principles cannot be applied mechanically to award double compensation for the same non-pecuniary loss — As the Tribunal had already awarded India Law Library Docid # 2452187
(715) STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NEETU DAHIYA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 and Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99 — Res Judicata — Execution proceedings — Objections by State claiming decretal land was part of Khasra No. 735 — State had previously instituted independent civil suits seeking to set aside the decrees on identical grounds, which were dismissed on merits after trial, and upheld up to the Supreme Court — Held, the State cannot re-agitate the same claim through execution objections — Section 11 CPC squarely bars relitigati India Law Library Docid # 2452167
(716) KAUNTO AND ANOTHER Vs. BHINDRO[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13 and 29(2) — Customary divorce — Pleadings and proof — Under Hindu law, marriage is a sacrament and divorce is generally not recognized except where sanctioned by custom or statutory provisions — Prevalence of a customary divorce contrary to general law must be specifically pleaded and established by cogent evidence — Execution of an alleged divorce deed or Talaknama on stamp paper without pleading and proving an applicable custom does not sever the marit India Law Library Docid # 2452238
(717) MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BULLU RAM AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Sections 19 and 19A — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 27 — Rescission of voidable contract — Locus standi of legal heir — Right to challenge instrument — The option to avoid a contract procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is exercisable by the legal representatives of the executant, provided the deceased had not affirmed the contract or lost such right by acquiescence during their lifetime. A legal representative qualifies as a "person inter India Law Library Docid # 2452239
(718) CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Public Interest Litigation — Maintainability — Abuse of judicial process — Personal and professional rivalry — Petitioner-Association filed PIL seeking vigilance proceedings and blacklisting against a rival contractor — Private respondent demonstrated that Association's President had pending cheque bounce litigation under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with his son, and President's close relatives were competing bidders in contested tenders — Held, PIL jurisdiction is meant for vin India Law Library Docid # 2452240
(719) STONEYS RESTAURANT AND ANOTHER Vs. MOHINDER SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Subordinate Court hours — Adverse order passed beyond prescribed hours — Permissibility — Ordinary court hours of Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh are from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. — Trial Court closed accused's right to cross-examine complainant at 4:30 p.m. on account of non-appearance — Held, proceedings can take place only during prescribed court hours unless parties agree otherwise — Litigants cannot legitimately be expected to appear India Law Library Docid # 2452241
(720) STATE OF H.P. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-09-2026 A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Principles reiterated — An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused — Where two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should refrain from disturbing the finding of acquittal — Appellate court will interfere only if the trial court's decision is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal India Law Library Docid # 2452244