(341) VINOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS Vs. PICO CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 362 and Section 482 — Recall of order passed on merits — Maintainability — Applicant sought recall of an order quashing issue of process under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of representation — Held, the impugned order was passed on merits after considering complaint averments, documents, and statutory provisions — An order rendered on merits upon thorough evaluation of fac India Law Library Docid # 2454636
(342) H. P. DIAMONDS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 14(2)(1) MUMBAI AND ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 143(2), 147 and 148 — Reassessment — Pre-requisites before proceeding with assessment — Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) before supplying reasons recorded for reopening and prior to deciding assessee's objections — Held, issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is the starting point of assessment proceedings and amounts to proceeding with the assessment — Following GKN Driveshafts, the Assessing Officer is obligated to dispose of objections agains India Law Library Docid # 2454637
(343) THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SONAL GARMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. THE COLLECTOR, MUMBAI & ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — Section 37A and Section 295 — Transfer Premium — Government leasehold land — Office unit in premises society — Power of State to levy premium — Section 37A provides a statutory basis for the State to charge a transfer premium when an individual unit in a building situated on leased Government land is transferred — Section 37A(1) encompasses any right, benefit, or share arising out of buildings on Government land — Earlier ruling in Aspi Chinoy no longer hold India Law Library Docid # 2454638
(344) ISHWAR CHAND JANGID Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 22 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint post-commencement of trial — Alternative relief for refund of advance money — Section 22 contains a non-obstante clause having overriding effect over the Code of Civil Procedure — Proviso to Section 22(2) mandates that the court shall allow an amendment at any stage to incorporate a claim for refund of earnest money or deposit — Requirement of establishing due diligence under the provi India Law Library Docid # 2454847
(345) SAYABH KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 251 and Section 442 — Framing of charge — Scope of judicial scrutiny — Requirement of application of mind — The Court cannot act as a mere conduit to mechanically translate police report allegations into charges. Finding of a prima facie case cannot be a ritualistic incantation and must have an identifiable factual foundation. Although an elaborate judgment is unnecessary at the charge stage, the order must reflect conscious judicial application India Law Library Docid # 2454848
(346) MOHD. AHASAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482) — Clubbing and consolidation of multiple FIRs — Principles — Accused faced multiple FIRs alleging similar offences — Permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in multiple FIRs on identical allegations results in multiplicity of proceedings and causes manifest prejudice to the accused — Scheme of procedural law contemplates a single comprehensive investigation rather than parallel India Law Library Docid # 2454849
(347) RAMLAL MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Border Security Force Act, 1968 — Section 19(b) and Section 62 — Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — Rule 45 — Absence without leave — Procedure on hearing of charge — Admission of overstaying leave does not obligate the Commandant to summarily award punishment — Remand for preparation of Record of Evidence and trial by Summary Security Force Court is well within the Commandant's powers under Rule 45(2) — Inquiry under Section 62 and hearing under Rule 45 operate at different stages for distinct India Law Library Docid # 2454850
(348) MAJOR MANMOHAN SINGH RATHORE (RETD.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Territorial Army Rules, 1948 — Rule 20A Proviso — Pre-Commission Training — Exemption claimed by retired Army Major — Nature of provision — Proviso to Rule 20A enables Director General or Additional Director General of Territorial Army to grant exemption from Pre-Commission Training if an ex-officer has undergone adequate military training in previous service — Held, the provision is not mandatory but purely discretionary — A candidate cannot claim exemption from Pre-Commission Training as a mat India Law Library Docid # 2454851
(349) KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIROHI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Service Law — Probationer — Termination of services — Motive versus Foundation — Disciplinary inquiry — Employer is entitled to assess the work, conduct, and overall suitability of a probationer during the probation period — Verification or preliminary examination of a complaint does not convert the suitability assessment into a disciplinary proceeding — Where no finding of misconduct is recorded against the employee and the employer merely considers it undesirable to continue the probationer, t India Law Library Docid # 2454852
(350) DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, BIKANER AND ANOTHER Vs. AJAY PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Appeal by State Authorities — 207 days delay — Mechanical explanation attributing delay to departmental procedures, moving files, and obtaining inter-departmental approvals — Held, administrative lethargy, red tape, and bureaucratic laxity do not constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay — Law of limitation binds the Government equally as any private litigant, and no separate or lenient standard can be applied to State author India Law Library Docid # 2454853
(351) THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 250 days by State in filing appeal — State attributed delay to procedural red tape, administrative approvals, and inter-departmental communications — Held, mechanical and nonchalant explanations devoid of day-to-day particulars cannot justify delay — Government departments possess competent personnel and do not enjoy a separate or relaxed limitation period — Condonation is an exception and not an anticipated benefit for the State India Law Library Docid # 2454854
(352) VANDANA MATHUR Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Waqf Act, 1995 — Section 83(9) — Condonation of delay — Filing of appeal — Appellant inadvertently filed a revision petition challenging an ex-parte eviction judgment and decree instead of filing an appeal under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act — Appellant subsequently filed the appeal along with an undertaking to withdraw the pending revision petition — Court held that bona fide mistake and sufficient cause were demonstrated — Delay of 44 days in filing the appea India Law Library Docid # 2454855
(353) AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 375 and 90 — Rape versus Consensual sex — False promise of marriage versus Breach of promise — To constitute rape on the pretext of a false promise to marry, the prosecution must establish that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from its inception and made it solely to induce consent for sexual relations. A mere breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances or subsequent failure does not amount to a misconception of fact under Section 90. Where India Law Library Docid # 2454902
(354) PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 64(2), 333, and 351(3) — Anticipatory Bail — Rape — Alleged incident occurred two months prior to lodging of FIR without initial allegations of rape, which were added later during investigation — Contradictions in victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicated a consensual relationship that turned sour — Ocular version lacked medical corroboration — Applicant had no criminal antecedent India Law Library Docid # 2454886
(355) PRADYUMAN DHANAK Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 332(b), 70(2), 351(3) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(g)/6 — Regular bail — Allegation of gang rape of minor — Zero FIR lodged after unexplained delay exceeding one month — Age determination disputed as Class 7th school record was not from the school first attended and no radiological examination was conducted — Medico-legal report failed to corroborate rape — Applicant having no criminal antecedents and languishing in India Law Library Docid # 2454887
(356) COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in U.P.) — Section 12-D(1)(c) — Cancellation of registration — Allegations of fraud or misrepresentation — Necessary ingredients — Cancellation under Section 12-D(1)(c) requires the authority to specifically identify a false or fraudulent representation made to procure registration or renewal and establish a direct nexus between such misrepresentation and the grant — Mere historical discrepancies, membership disputes, or an administrative reassessm India Law Library Docid # 2454889
(357) IMTEYAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Sections 3(1) and 19(4) — Anticipatory Bail — Solitary case in gang chart — Parity — Applicant was implicated under the Gangsters Act based on a single case in the gang chart, wherein he was already enlarged on anticipatory bail — Past criminal history involved petty cases without any heinous offences — Co-accused persons identically situated were already granted a India Law Library Docid # 2454892
(358) BHARATHRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Delay and laches — Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Writ petition filed after fourteen years challenging mutation orders passed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — Held, although no statutory limitation is prescribed under Article 226, relief is discretionary and equitable — A litigant who sleeps over rights and approaches the Court belatedly without adequate explanation cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdict India Law Library Docid # 2454893
(359) COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in U.P.) — Sections 12-D, 13-A and 13-B — Authority of District Magistrate — Transfer of society property — District Magistrate directed vesting and management of petitioner-society's property in another governmental body — Held, the Act confers no independent power upon the District Magistrate to divest a society of its property or transfer management merely because disputes exist — Under Section 13-B, the District Magistrate can only apply to the India Law Library Docid # 2454894
(360) RAMDATT YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 30-09-2026 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) — Essential ingredients — Place within public view — Discharge — To constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r), intentional insult or intimidation must be committed with the intent to humiliate an SC/ST member specifically on the ground of caste and must occur at a place within "public view". Where the incident admittedly occurred inside a private room without the presence of independent public witn India Law Library Docid # 2454896