(101) NIDHIR RANJAN ROY Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Service Law — Transfer — Scope of judicial interference — Transfer is an incident of service and an inherent prerogative of the employer — An employee has limited grounds to challenge a transfer order — High Court will not routinely interfere with administrative transfer orders unless the decision is manifestly vitiated by mala fides or passed in violation of statutory rules or norms — It is ultimately the employer's domain to determine how the service India Law Library Docid # 2455153
(102) RONGPUR GAON PANCHAYAT AND ANR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Land Revenue and Allotment — Cancellation of Occupation Certificate — Petitioner Gaon Panchayat erected a temporary office on Government Khas land — Respondent Assistant Settlement Officer cancelled the previously issued Occupation Certificate upon finding that construction was erected on a flood protection embankment along the river without permission from the Water Resources Department — Held, setting up an office on an embankment without requisite a India Law Library Docid # 2455155
(103) SMTI RENU DANGORIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Tender and Contract — Interpretation of Tender Documents — Essential Eligibility Criteria — Bid for IMFL Retail Off License rejected on ground that site plan was certified by an Architect, not an Engineer — Petitioner contended Annexure-C prescribing Engineer certification was not referenced in Clause 6 — Held, tender documents must be read harmoniously as a whole — Clause 6 was non-exhaustive, using the term "primarily consist of" — Annexure-C formed part of the bid document as a checklist of e India Law Library Docid # 2455157
(104) INDRA MOHAN SARMAH Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Service Law — Right to be considered for promotion — Fair consideration — While promotion per se is not an indefeasible right of an employee, every employee possesses a right to fair consideration for such promotion — Petitioner substantively working as Assistant Engineer was eligible and stood at Serial No. 1 in the Gradation List — Held, since the petitioner satisfied the prescribed qualifying service and criteria, there existed no impediment in considering his case for promotion to the next h India Law Library Docid # 2455158
(105) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. MAGAN KUMARI @ MAGAN SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Contributory negligence — Rear-end collision — Safe distance — Eye-witness admitted that the car was driven at excessive speed, maintaining an unsafe distance of only 10 to 12 feet behind a moving truck, leading to collision when the truck braked suddenly — Archit Saini distinguished, as offending truck was moving rather than parked negligently — Held, driver of the rear vehicle failed to maintain safe distance and brake properly — Finding of 50% contributory negligenc India Law Library Docid # 2455168
(106) RAJENDRA JAIN Vs. JITENDRA KURMI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Scope of inquiry — Averments in plaint are germane — Plaint is required to be read as a whole and defenses raised by the defendant cannot form the basis to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 — Where plaintiffs pleaded that orders deleting their names from revenue records were passed behind their back without affording an opportunity of hearing, a valid cause of action was disclosed — Disputed questions of fact and proc India Law Library Docid # 2455176
(107) MANIRAM GOND Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389(1) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Suspension of sentence — Fixed-term sentence — Principles reiterated — When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period and files an appeal, suspension of sentence should be considered liberally unless exceptional circumstances exist — If an appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously, refusal to suspend a limited-duration sentence would render the valuable statutory right of appeal an e India Law Library Docid # 2455178
(108) BALWANT AND OTHERS Vs. PANRAJ AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Determination of bar of limitation — Consideration of plaint averments — Settled principle that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint read as a whole are germane — Defence set up by defendants in written statement or in any application cannot form the basis for rejection of plaint — Where plaintiff specifically pleaded lack of knowledge regarding unauthorized alienation India Law Library Docid # 2455180
(109) OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SHARDA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Indian Easements Act, 1882 — Section 4 and Section 15 — Easementary rights to light and air — Title over servient heritage — Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration of easementary rights and injunction against defendants' obstruction of light and air through windows and ventilations existing for over 32 years — Held, under Section 4, an easement is claimed in respect of land not one's own — It is not required for the plaintiff to establish title over the disputed space or passage — Continuous India Law Library Docid # 2455187
(110) ASHUTOSH Vs. TANVI[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B(2) — Divorce by mutual consent — Statutory cooling-off period of six months — Directory nature and waiver — The six-month statutory waiting period prescribed under Section 13B(2) is directory and not mandatory — Family Court has the discretion to waive the cooling-off period in cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, conciliation efforts have failed, parties have genuinely settled all their differences, and continuing the waiting period woul India Law Library Docid # 2455190
(111) M/S SA INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH PROPRIETOR SAYYED AFSAR ALI AND OTHERS Vs. BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Banking Law — RBI Master Directions on Fraud — Classification of Account as Fraud — Principles of Natural Justice — Right to Personal Hearing — Petitioners challenged orders classifying their accounts as fraud alleging violation of natural justice — Held, relying on Supreme Court ruling in State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Private Limited, Rajesh Agarwal does not recognize any right in the borrower to a personal hearing before classification of their account as fraud — Procedure under RBI Master India Law Library Docid # 2455192
(112) M/S SA INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH PROPRIETOR SAYYED AFSAR ALI AND OTHERS Vs. BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Banking and Financial Laws — RBI Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management — Classification of account as Fraud — Principles of Natural Justice — Right to Personal Hearing — Time to respond — Petitioner challenged order declaring account as fraud, alleging non-grant of personal hearing and denial of adequate time due to seizure of records by GST Department — Held, following Supreme Court ruling in SBI v. Amit Iron Pvt. Ltd., borrowers have no inherent right to personal hearing before classifyin India Law Library Docid # 2455193
(113) DUDHESHWAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 978 days in preferring criminal revision — Ground that petitioner had moved to another State to earn livelihood by driving a vehicle and lacked proper communication regarding case proceedings — Absence of serious objection by the State — In view of the submissions and averments made, delay condoned and interlocutory application allowed. India Law Library Docid # 2455246
(114) XXX Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Principles governing bail to a juvenile in conflict with law — Section 12 overrides provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other prevailing law — Grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule, while refusal is an exception — Bail can only be declined if reasonable grounds exist showing release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical, or psychologica India Law Library Docid # 2455247
(115) YASIR RAJA @ MANJAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope and limits — High Court does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate or reassess evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from concurrent findings recorded by courts below — Interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted only where the impugned findings suffer from patent illegality, manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or result in a gross miscarriage of justice — Concurren India Law Library Docid # 2455248
(116) RAJENDRA PRASAD SAW AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of interference — High Court exercising revisional power does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate or reassess evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from concurrent findings of courts below — Revisional interference is warranted only when impugned findings suffer from patent illegality, manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or result in gross miscarriage of justice — Concurre India Law Library Docid # 2455249
(117) RAJESH KUMAR SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323 and 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Rape and assault of minor — Medical evidence versus oral testimony — Victim alleged she resisted the assault and was slapped and gagged, but medical examination revealed no injury marks on her body or private parts, and the examining doctor could not confirm sexual assault — Absence of any medical evidence or bodily injury contradicted the victim's narrative of violent struggle — E India Law Library Docid # 2455250
(118) STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. SHIV RATAN PRASAD GUPTA AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 3 and Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 445 days in filing appeal by State — Bureaucratic delay — State sought condonation citing procedural movement of files and approvals across administrative tables — Held, unexplained delay must be dealt with strictly — A clear distinction exists between a valid explanation and a mere excuse — Bureaucratic indolence and red tape cannot justify inordinate delay — Law of limitation binds the State equally as private lit India Law Library Docid # 2455227
(119) SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311 read with Section 91 — Additional evidence at belated stage — Mechanical exercise of discretion — Prosecution moved an application to exhibit nine documents when trial was fixed for arguments, without specifying the witnesses to be examined or the mode of proving the documents — Magistrate allowed the application without considering the relevancy of the documents — Held, discretionary power under Section 311 cannot be exercised mechanically — Or India Law Library Docid # 2455238
(120) AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(2) — Trap case — Proof of demand — Sine qua non — Prosecution must prove demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact — Mere recovery of tainted money from accused, absent proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction — Prosecution failed to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt, resting entirely on uncorroborated testimony of complainant where no independent India Law Library Docid # 2454628