(61) INDIAN KAYAKING AND CANOEING ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review — Timely consideration of requests — Absence of an absolute or indefeasible right to obtain a favourable decision cannot be equated with the absence of a right to fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and timely consideration of a request — Executive authority must consider requests on relevant grounds, exclude extraneous considerations, and act within a reasonable time, especially in time-sensitive matters — A s India Law Library Docid # 2451725
(62) REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II Vs. MS. MAMTA BINANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-09-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61(2) — Limitation — E-filing technical glitch — Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" — Appeal was delayed by one day beyond the 45-day outer limit due to OTP delivery failures on NCLAT's portal — NCLAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred — Held, limitation runs only when the tribunal is functional and capable of receiving pleadings — Litigants cannot suffer for the tribunal's system failure — Tribunal ought to exempt the non-functional India Law Library Docid # 2452521
(63) V. SUMITRA REDDY AND ANOTHER Vs. K. RANGANADHA REDDY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Partnership Act, 1932 — Sections 46, 47, and 48 — Dissolution of partnership at will — Winding up and settlement of accounts — Escalation in value of partnership land — Valuation of outgoing partner's share — Preliminary decree fixed the date of dissolution of partnership at will as 18.10.1983 — Date 18.10.1983 was relevant strictly for the ascertainment of profits and losses of the firm till dissolution, but has no relevance to the right of partners to receive the value in the residue of assets India Law Library Docid # 2451690
(64) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. VEDANTA LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Securities and Exchange Board of India (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 — Regulations 14(3), 15B(8) — Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP) — Regulations 2(1)(c), 3, 4 — Scope of inquiry under Regulation 15B(8) — Inter-relation between release/forfeiture of escrow amount under Buyback Regulations and allegation of fraud under PFUTP Regulations — Fulfilment of conditions India Law Library Docid # 2451691
(65) S.S. DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Service Law — Fundamental Rules — Rule 56(j) — Compulsory Retirement — Scope of Judicial Review — Arbitrariness and Malice in Law — Order of compulsory retirement issued under FR 56(j) retiring appellant prematurely from Indian Trade Service (ITS) — Upheld by CAT and High Court — Held: Scope of judicial review under FR 56(j) is restricted, but court can interfere if decision is arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by malice in law — FR 56(j) cannot be invoked as a shortcut to avoid regular proceedin India Law Library Docid # 2451693
(66) M/S KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 30(2)(e), 36(4)(b)(iii) and 53(1) — Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — Section 11(2) — Resolution Plan — Dues of workmen — Statutory first charge — Dues relating to provident fund and gratuity remain outside the liquidation estate and cannot be made subject to the waterfall mechanism under Section 53(1) of the IB Code. Successful Resolution Applicant is obligated to pay the provident fund and India Law Library Docid # 2452522
(67) UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION Vs. ASHOK YADAV AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Public Examinations — Judicial Review — Scope of interference with key answers — Presumption of correctness — Held, constitutional courts must exercise great restraint when examining challenges to key answers selected by examining authorities. Interference is permissible only where a glaring, apparent mistake is demonstrated without resort to any inferential process or reasoning. The court must presume the correctness of the answer key, and in the event of doubt, the benefit must India Law Library Docid # 2452523
(68) STS GLADIES Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2026 Bar Council of India Rules, 1965 — Rules of Legal Education, 2008 — Rule 5 — Enrolment as advocate — Eligibility where LL.B. obtained through regular mode but a preceding qualification (school/Bachelor's degree) obtained through open, distance or correspondence mode — Controversy as to interpretation and application of Rule 5 pending final adjudication before Supreme Court — Court declined to enter into merits of interpretation India Law Library Docid # 2452621
(69) NATIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. SURYA WIRES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 7(5) read with 2(1)(h) and 37 — Multi-document commercial transaction — Incorporation of arbitration clause by reference — Binding nature on non-signatory guarantor — Appellant extended loan facilities to respondent-company for setting up training centres — Contemporaneous execution of Loan Agreements and Personal Guarantees by Respondent No. 2 (Managing India Law Library Docid # 2451611
(70) M/S. GVV CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) — "Excepted Matters" clause in contract — Scope of Arbitral Tribunal’s enquiry — The question whether a particular claim is covered by, or falls outside, an "excepted matters" clause of a works contract is a matter squarely within the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16, and not a question for a court — Neither a referral court under Section India Law Library Docid # 2451612
(71) NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Vs. M/S SUNSHINE TRADE TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — Section 12 — Read with U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — Section 41(3) — Allotment of Commercial Plot — Zero Period Policy (28.03.2016) — Clause 5 — Grant of benefit on non-availability of access road — Land allotted to developer with proposed 45-metre Front Road and 24-metre Side Road as per site plan — 45-metre Front Road was encroached, unacquired ‘Abadi’ land, and unconstructed — NOIDA failed to clear encroachment or acquire India Law Library Docid # 2451613
(72) MANAV BHANOT Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 3G(1) & (5) — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 11 & 18 — Nature of determination of compensation by Competent Authority under NH Act — Determination of compensation made by Competent Authority under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act corresponds to an award passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act — Determination of dispute by an Arbitrator India Law Library Docid # 2451614
(73) SANTOSH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34 / 149 — Reversal of acquittal — Overt acts and common intention — High Court acquitted A6 on the premise that holding the victim at close-range gunshot would have caused injury to A6, and acquitted A12 for lack of reliable evidence regarding exhortation — Held, the bullet entered the victim's chest and remained embedded inside, leaving no possibility of injury to the person holding him India Law Library Docid # 2451615
(74) ANNU KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ of Quo Warranto — Service Law — Qualification for appointment — Burden of Proof — Primary onus lies on the writ petitioner, who may even be a stranger, to establish through unimpeachable evidence that an appointee lacks essential qualifications or suffers from a disqualification to hold a public office. Once established, the onus shifts to the appointer and appointee to demonstrate legality India Law Library Docid # 2451616
(75) ASHOK UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 r/w 34 — Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27 — Conviction for murder and firearm offense — Benefit of Doubt — Conviction of appellants based primarily on eyewitness testimony of close relatives — High Court affirmed conviction — Assailed before Supreme Court — Held, serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts — Omission of alleged injured witnesses' details in Section 161 statements and lack of medical corroboration for their injuries — Conduct India Law Library Docid # 2451617
(76) KHANINDRA KR. DUTTA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Offence of criminal misconduct by public servant — Essential ingredients — Requirement of obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage — Appellant store-in-charge certified receipt of medicines without actual supply based on false entries made by storekeeper — High Court acquitted appellant under Sections 420, 465, 471, and 477A of IPC but India Law Library Docid # 2451618
(77) PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Service Law — Regularization vs. Fresh Appointment — Standard for determining nature of engagement — Appellant-Board adopted Government Regularization Policy dated 23.01.2001 mutatis mutandis and issued appointment letters to contract/ad-hoc/daily-wage employees on regular basis — Appellant contended that issuance of appointment letters constituted fresh appointments post-01.01.2004 — Court held that substance of engagement must prevail over form — Public notice and internal communications expli India Law Library Docid # 2451619
(78) SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — Essential ingredients and nature of injury — Grievousness of injuries or capability of causing death is not an indispensable prerequisite to attract Section 307 — Determinative test is the intention or knowledge with which the overt act was committed, to be discerned from the surrounding circumstances — Bodily hurt, whether simple or grievous, is not a precondition to establish culpability, but merely serves as a statutory ground under t India Law Library Docid # 2453245
(79) M/S PUNAHCHAKRAN PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INDOTECH WASTE SOLUTION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-09-2026 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 — Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) — Mandatory nature of RG, 2016 — Enforceability — Executive guidelines issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 are binding and mandatory in nature — Non-publication of RG, 2016 in Official Gazette does not India Law Library Docid # 2451338
(80) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-09-2026 Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 47-A — Scope and Invocation — Power under Section 47-A — Pre-condition of "reason to believe" — Registering authority initiated proceedings under Section 47-A against the appellant on the premise that the guideline value of the property was higher than the value presented in the instrument — Single Judge quashed the show cause notice relying on V.N. Devadoss [(2009) 7 SCC 438], holding that jurisdiction under Section 47-A requires deliberate undervaluation with a fraudu India Law Library Docid # 2451424