(41) MULKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HP[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — S. 109 — Bail — Held, applying settled parameters for grant of bail (nature of accusation, severity of punishment, nature of evidence, likelihood of abscondence), where the injury was inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon on the neck — a vital body part — indicating intention to kill, and the offence attracts life imprisonment, bail was declined India Law Library Docid # 2448569
(42) LANKA SRI KALYAN RAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) — Bail — Held, on second bail application, where charge sheet already filed beyond the statutory 180-day period, over 238 days undergone in custody, absence of adverse antecedents, fixed abode within jurisdiction, and co-accused on similar footing already released on bail, petitioner India Law Library Docid # 2448570
(43) DILIP M. BOBADE Vs. M/S. LLOYD'S REGISTER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(s) — "Workman" — Designation not determinative — Mere designation of an employee (e.g. IT Delivery Analyst/Administrator) is not conclusive of workman status; what is determinative is the nature of duties and responsibilities actually performed, examined with reference to the dominant nature of such duties. India Law Library Docid # 2448571
(44) UDAY PATIL AND OTHERS Vs. MR. PARESH SATYENDRA VOHRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 21A — De-registration — Scope of power — Power of Registrar to de-register a society under S. 21A is much narrower than appellate power under S. 152 challenging registration, and can be exercised only upon satisfaction of one of the four enumerated grounds under S. 21A(1) — Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the order of registration while India Law Library Docid # 2448560
(45) NITIN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (NSIT)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Held, jurisdiction under S. 34 is supervisory, not appellate; Court cannot undertake fresh evaluation of evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Scope under S. 37 is further and even more circumscribed, confined to examining whether power under S. 34 was exercised in excess or not exercised at all — Interference with India Law Library Docid # 2448561
(46) VANTAGE INTEGRATED SECURITIES SOLUTION PVT LTD Vs. SPARK TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Held, where Arbitrator found no contractual stipulation entitling appellant to unilaterally adjust/recover liquidated damages imposed on it by a third party against amounts admittedly payable to respondent, and such finding was based on interpretation of the Purchase Order and evidence on India Law Library Docid # 2448563
(47) OGULJEREN DERCHIYEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Customs Act, 1962 — Ss. 80 and 125 — Interplay — Held, S. 80 constitutes a special statutory code governing return/re-export of goods forming part of passenger baggage, conditional upon a true declaration under S. 77, whereas S. 125 is a general discretionary provision for redemption of confiscated goods and does not itself authorise re-export of confiscated baggage irrespective of compliance with S. 80 — Discretion to permit redemption of "prohibited goods" under India Law Library Docid # 2448564
(48) KAVITHA KURUGANTI Vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-08-2026 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 — Sections 34(h) and 39(1)(iv) — Revocation on ground of vexatious action against farmers — Suits filed by breeder against individual farmers alleging infringement, whether vexatious/predatory so as to attract revocation under S. 34(h) — Held, mere filing of suits for protection of statutory rights conferred under the Act cannot per se be held intimidatory or vexatious — Allegation of vexatious suits India Law Library Docid # 2448639
(49) HRUDAYA KHARA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(B) — Bail — Non-Commercial Quantity — Second Bail Application — Bail may be granted on a second application to an accused found in possession of a non-commercial quantity of ganja, having no adverse antecedents, a fixed abode, and prolonged judicial custody without filing of charge sheet, notwithstanding an earlier co-accused-specific order — Relief granted subject to stringent conditions. [Paras 5-6] India Law Library Docid # 2448779
(50) SATYENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 — Unlawful assembly and fatal assault — Non-proof of five or more persons forming unlawful assembly — Defective framing of charge — Investigation not pending against unknown persons under Section 173(8) CrPC — Specific individual role and common intention required to be evaluated — Where charge-sheet failed to show an unlawful assembly India Law Library Docid # 2448803
(51) AMRAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. GANESH DADARAO ANASANE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Environmental Law — Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 — Institutionalisation & Environmental Compensation — Environmental governance requires institutionalizing enforcement mechanisms beyond framing rules — Under Rules 17 and 18, a Central Implementation Committee must be constituted to supervise implementation and formulate structured, objective guidelines for levying India Law Library Docid # 2448521
(52) K. BHARATHAMMA Vs. BANDARU SAKKU BAI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 17 & Section 151 — Scope and Parameters for Recalling Witness and Reopening Evidence — The power to recall and examine a witness under Order 8 Rule 17 is a discretionary power-cum-facilitator vested primarily in the court to clarify doubts or seeking clarifications regarding evidence already led — It cannot be routinely invoked at the instance of a party at the fag end of a trial to fill up lacunae, omissions, or gaps in evidence, nor to permit fu India Law Library Docid # 2448522
(53) KUNTEGOWDA Vs. THURUBAIAH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 118(a) and 139 — Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt & Rebuttal by Accused — Once the execution of a cheque and the drawer's signature are admitted or proved, statutory mandatory presumptions arise under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt — The burden shifts to the accused to disprove these presumptions by leading cogent direct or indirect India Law Library Docid # 2448523
(54) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT. THUNGALA DHANA LAXMI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 146, 147, 196 and 207 — Motor Insurance — Uninsured Vehicles & Mandatory Coverage — Public Interest Directions for Integration of Technology and Policy Reforms — Despite statutory mandate under Section 146 of the MVA, over 56% of vehicles on Indian roads remain uninsured, severely impeding prompt compensation to accident victims and drawing affected families into prolonged litigation — Recognising the safety of commuters India Law Library Docid # 2448524
(55) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI DEVRAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 141 — Judicial Precedents — Retrospective Application — Judicial declarations of law by the Supreme Court operate retrospectively unless expressly stated to be prospective — The 11-Judge Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (31.10.2002) declaring the subvention scheme unconstitutional took immediate retrospective effect, terminating executive India Law Library Docid # 2448517
(56) ARJUN JANI @ TUNTUN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Criminal Law — Access to Justice for Indigent Convicts — Constitutional Courts must adopt a proactive, liberal approach to condone inordinate delays in appeals filed by incarcerated, marginalized convicts to safeguard fundamental rights — High Court erred in refusing to condone a 3157-day delay in a jail appeal where the convict had already served 12 years of life imprisonment. India Law Library Docid # 2448518
(57) SPO/CONSTABLE IRB SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Section 12 — Effect of Probation on Service Career — Release of a convict on probation under Section 3 or 4 of the 1958 Act does not obliterate conviction — The "disqualification" under Section 12 refers strictly to statutory disqualifications under other laws and does not bar disciplinary action, removal from public service, or override constitutional provisions like Article India Law Library Docid # 2448519
(58) DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY Vs. B.S. RAWAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Service Law — Resignation — Unauthorized Acceptance & Doctrine of Ratification — An unauthorized acceptance of resignation by an incompetent authority takes effect and becomes valid from its inception once ratified by the competent authority, as ratification operates retrospectively under the doctrine of relation-back (ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur) — Where an employee voluntarily India Law Library Docid # 2448520
(59) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Vs. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 04-08-2026 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 44(1)(c) — Committal of Scheduled Offence Case to Special Court — Conditions Precedent — Cognizance & Sanction — Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires that the Special Court trying the money-laundering complaint must have already taken cognizance of that complaint before it can entertain an application to commit a pending scheduled-offence case from another court — Where the Special Court had merely issued a pre-cognizance notice under Se India Law Library Docid # 2448534
(60) JENORIN D. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 04-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, Section 201 read with Section 34 — Circumstantial Evidence — Extra-Judicial Confession — Evidentiary Value & Corroboration — An extra-judicial confession is inherently a weak piece of evidence that must be examined by the Court with greater care and caution —To form the basis of a conviction, it must be voluntary, truthful, inspire confidence, and be supported by a chain of cogent, corroborative circumstances —Where the principal India Law Library Docid # 2448535