(221) VISHAL GANESH KASABE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 302 read with 34 — Murder — Appeal against conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Dying Declaration (Oral) — Role of Appellant — Omissions in First Information Report (FIR) and previous statements — Appellant's name (Accused No. 2) was absent in the FIR lodged by the deceased's brother (PW-1) despite alleged disclosure to PW-3 and PW-4; this suggests the India Law Library Docid # 2438029
(222) MANI @ MANIKANTAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2026 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 294(b) - Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act — Evidence — Prosecution relied on motive, eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery — Accused allegedly harboured one-sided love for the deceased and stabbed her after she rejected his advances — Eye witness accounts (PWs 1-4) were found to be cogent, convincing, and corroborative of the material particulars of the occurrence. India Law Library Docid # 2438106
(223) M/S. NRP PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of Judicial Interference — High Court cannot sit in appeal against findings of an Arbitrator by re-appreciating evidence, even if an alternative view is possible — The Court only interferes if the award suffers from perversity or patent illegality. India Law Library Docid # 2438107
(224) PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323 — Voluntarily causing hurt — Conviction based on initial incident — Appellate review of conviction and sentence — Prosecution successfully proved that the appellant inflicted a blow with a stick on the victim's shoulder/back following a verbal altercation when the victim demanded glasses — Testimony of victim (PW1) and eyewitness (PW3) was corroborative regarding the first India Law Library Docid # 2438008
(225) BANITA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-01-2026 Service Law — Public Employment — Reservation — OBC Certificate — Cut-off Date — Whether a selected candidate belonging to OBC Category can be rendered ineligible for the post of Community Health Officer solely on the ground of non-submission of a valid OBC Certificate within the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement when a valid certificate was produced during document verification — Apex Court precedents holding that the object of reservation is to give equal opportunity India Law Library Docid # 2438009
(226) ASHUTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) and criminal proceedings — Principles for quashing — Allegations must be taken at face value; power to be exercised sparingly — Grounds include: allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, non-cognizable offence alleged without magistrate's order, allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, express legal bar exists, or proceedings are manifestly mala fide India Law Library Docid # 2438010
(227) STATE OF HP Vs. ABC[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-01-2026 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 — Sections 52, 53 — Revision against acquittal — High Court's powers — An appeal against acquittal by a Juvenile Justice Board is barred under Section 52; however, a revision is permissible under Section 53 — While exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction, as per the procedure established under Section 401(3) India Law Library Docid # 2438011
(228) ASTHA THAKUR Vs. DHANANJAY KANWAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 31-12-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 27 — Disposal of Property — Family Court Act, 1984 — Sections 7, 8, 20 — Jurisdiction of Family Court — Application for return of property (Istridhan, gifts, and other articles) filed during divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA — Divorce decree granted ex-parte, but property application dismissed subsequently for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that an India Law Library Docid # 2437985
(229) DR. NISHI SHARMA Vs. DR. ASHOK SHARMA AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 31-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against Acquittal — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 354 and 509 — Molestation and Insulting the modesty of a woman — Scope of Appellate Court’s Power — The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal should interfere only when there is perversity of fact and law or where the India Law Library Docid # 2438043
(230) SARLA DEVI Vs. MAHINDER PRATAP AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 31-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — The Appellate Court must be guided by the principle that interference with a judgment of acquittal is warranted only if the findings recorded by the Trial Court suffer from perversity, are based on a misreading/omission of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with India Law Library Docid # 2438044
(231) SH. GAURAV SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S DURGA AND SONS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18, Rule 3-A — Examination of Party as Witness — Application for permission to testify at a later stage — Mandatory nature of Order 18, Rule 3-A requires a party wishing to appear as a witness to do so before any other witness on their behalf is examined, unless the Court permits otherwise for reasons recorded — Rule 3-A is procedural and aims to prevent a party India Law Library Docid # 2437986
(232) V.K. CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER Vs. TEJ VEER AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 26-12-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Section 138, Section 148 — BNSS, 2023 — Section 528 (read with Section 430 and Section 395) — Suspension of Sentence pending appeal — Condition of depositing 20% compensation amount — Appellate Court's power — The imposition of a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of India Law Library Docid # 2437792
(233) A.O. SMITH CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. STAR SMITH EXPORT PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 29(5) — Trade Mark Infringement — Passing Off — Interim Injunction — Use of registered trade mark as a trade name or part of trade name — Relief sought against Impugned Trade Name (Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd.) and Impugned Domain Name (http://www.starsmith.in/) — Already established that 'SMITH' is dominant part of Plaintiffs' (A.O. SMITH CORPORATION AND ANR.) Trade Marks and Impugned Trade Marks are deceptively similar, and India Law Library Docid # 2437315
(234) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MAHESHWARI DEVI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 (Claim Petition for Negligence) and Section 163A (Structured Formula Compensation) — Negligence — Determining Factor — When Claim Under Section 166 Fails to Prove Negligence — Tribunal finding that deceased motorcyclist failed to prove rash/negligent driving by truck driver because truck was stationary and hit from behind — Held, such finding is inconsistent with law (Archit Saini) — Improper or wrongful parking of a vehicle is India Law Library Docid # 2437316
(235) STATE Vs. KAMAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Appeal Against Acquittal — Standard of Review — Scope of Interference — An order of acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a different view is possible — The Appellant-State must demonstrate illegality or perversity in the findings, or that the conclusion ignores material evidence — Absent such demonstration, the High Court will not interfere with the reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. India Law Library Docid # 2437317
(236) DR D K MODI Vs. V K MODI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — A plaint can only be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of action, based strictly on the grounds listed under Order 7 Rule 11, and not on matters concerning the merits of the case or the eventual relief India Law Library Docid # 2437318
(237) MAMTA DAS Vs. PUNEET DAS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review Jurisdiction — Scope — Review is maintainable only for error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or for any other sufficient reason analogous to the foregoing — It is not a forum for re-agitating the matter on merits, seeking a rehearing of issues already adjudicated, or India Law Library Docid # 2437319
(238) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Aircraft Act, 1934 — Rules, Notifications, Height Restriction for Safeguarding Aircraft Operations Rules, 2015 (2015 Notification) — Airports Authority of India (AAI) — Grant/Rejection of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for building height near aerodrome — Judicial Review — Scope — Technical Determinations — Court's function is supervisory, ensuring action is within statutory mandate, adheres to natural justice, and avoids arbitrariness/perversity — Reassessment of technical conclusions (e.g., cl India Law Library Docid # 2437320
(239) RABARI BHARMIBEN MURU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013— Section 54 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Land Acquisition Process — Applicability of New Act — Where the award under Section 11 of the old Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) was passed after the new Act (Land Acquisition Act, 2013) came into force (i.e., after 01.01.2014) — The award must India Law Library Docid # 2437660
(240) RAMNIKLA AND CO THRU CHETAN RAMNIKLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs. PARESHKUMAR SHANKARLAL TRIVEDI[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 24-12-2025 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act) — Section 13(1)(b) and Explanation — Eviction — Erection of Permanent Structure by Tenant — Definition of “Permanent Structure” — Tenant constructing a partition wall (10 ft. high, 20 ft. wide, 9 inch thick) with brick and mortar on a cement foundation, annexed to existing walls, replacing an old tin sheet partition due to corrosion — The construction of such a wall, particularly one that cannot be removed without using a India Law Library Docid # 2437661