(581) STATE OF KERALA Vs. V.R.JAMEELA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Registration Act, 1908 — Section 17(1)(g) distinguished from Ss. 32, 33 — Compulsory registration of power of attorney authorising transfer of immovable property — Section 17(1)(g), falling under Part III (registrable documents), operates independently of the procedural requirements under Ss. 32-33 (Part VI, presentation for registration) — A power of attorney validly executed and authenticated under S. 33 for a principal residing abroad satisfies only the procedural requirement for presenting d India Law Library Docid # 2448582
(582) GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI K.R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope of review — Subsequent stay of the precedent relied on not a ground for review — Review is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, self-evident and not requiring a process of reasoning — Explanation to Or. 47 R. 1 expressly excludes, as a ground for review, subsequent reversal or modification of the legal position relied on by a superior court in another case — Direction to pa India Law Library Docid # 2448583
(583) MUHAMMED SUMAIR A. Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Inapplicability to chance recovery — BNSS Ss. 47, 48 — Sufficiency of arrest-ground communication — Procedural safeguard under S. 50 NDPS Act does not apply where recovery of contraband is a chance recovery made during routine checking without prior specific information — Communication of arrest grounds under Ss. 47-48 BNSS specifying quantity of contraband and reason for arrest is not rendered defective merely because the speci India Law Library Docid # 2448608
(584) ANOOP Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 185, 3(1) r/w 181 — Identification of accused-driver through arrest at spot and corroborating testimony — Where the accused-driver was restrained by the public at the spot immediately after a rash and negligent driving accident, arrested on the spot by police, and identified by witnesses without effective challenge in cross-examination, identification held sufficiently established despite absence of direct eyewitness iden India Law Library Docid # 2448609
(585) EDISON Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) — Proof of demand and acceptance — Effect of presumption under S. 20 — Proof of demand is sine qua non for offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) — Mere acceptance or recovery of the amount without proof of demand is insufficient — Demand and acceptance may be established through direct or corroborating witness testimony (including a partly-corroborated or hostile witness's creditworthy portion), and once established, the ma India Law Library Docid # 2448610
(586) VINEET JAIN Vs. AMAN ZARGAR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 — Sections 1(1), 5(1), & 7 — Criminal Defamation (Section 500 RPC/IPC) — Liability of Managing Director vs. Editor — Statutory Presumption — Under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, a statutory presumption under Section 7 arises only against the designated "Editor" whose name is printed on the newspaper as the person controlling the selection of the published matter — The Act does not recognize India Law Library Docid # 2448653
(587) RAHUL SHARMA AND OTHER Vs. UT OF J&K INCHARGE POLICE STATION, JANIPUR, J&K.[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 [corresponding to CrPC, 1973 — Section 482] — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 342, and 498-A — Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise — Matrimonial disputes — High Court in exercise of its inherent India Law Library Docid # 2448654
(588) MOHAMMAD RIZWAN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8(2) — Preventive Detention — Scope of Judicial Review and Subjective Satisfaction — Preventive detention is a precautionary measure aimed at preventing future prejudicial acts rather than punishing past conduct — The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of appeal over the subjective satisfaction of India Law Library Docid # 2448655
(589) ALEX MATTOO Vs. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8 — Preventive Detention — Detention of person already in judicial custody — An order of preventive detention can validly be passed against a person who is already in judicial custody provided the detaining authority is aware of such custody, applies its mind to the relevant material, and records compelling reasons India Law Library Docid # 2448656
(590) MEKHANA SIBY Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — KEAM Prospectus — Mandatory online submission of qualifying marks "irrespective of academic eligibility" clause does not dispense with submission — Prospectus clauses requiring online submission/upload of qualifying Board marks within stipulated time are peremptory and have the force of law, not to be diluted by writ jurisdiction — Clause permitting inclusion "irrespective of academic eligibility" refers to the minimum eligibility percentage, not to di India Law Library Docid # 2448673
(591) VINU K.S Vs. VEENA VISWAN[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2026 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 3 — Standard of proof in matrimonial claims — Preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Matrimonial claims for return of gold/money entrusted at marriage are tested on preponderance of probabilities — The court must first fix probabilities (weeding out the impossible) and then weigh them (weeding out the improbable), and inferences must rest on proved facts, not conjecture — Claim for entrustment of gold established on facts requires proved India Law Library Docid # 2448674
(592) BASHIR AHMAD BHAT Vs. ADNAN MIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Requirements for a Valid Compromise Decree — Mandatory nature of written agreement signed by all parties — Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC (as amended in 1976), a Court cannot pass a compromise decree merely on the oral statement or willingness of the parties — For a compromise decree to be passed, the agreement/compromise must India Law Library Docid # 2448651
(593) ABDUL GANI GANIE AND ANOTHER Vs. ABDUL GANI BHAT[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rules 2 & 3 — Summary Procedure — Non-filing of amended application for leave to defend — Effect of unamended application — Once an application seeking leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC is allowed to be amended with a direction to file a fresh/amended application within a specified time, the unamended application loses its efficacy for India Law Library Docid # 2448652
(594) AMAR THAPA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Commercial Quantity — Bail Application — Grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantity requires satisfaction of two conditions: reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail, after India Law Library Docid # 2447506
(595) MS PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. NITYAM PHARMA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-07-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Statutory notice — Validity must reflect legally enforceable debt — Notice demanding less than cheque amount due to admitted part payments is not per se invalid if computation is disclosed — Whether such demand makes the notice valid India Law Library Docid # 2447507
(596) M/S BRANDAVAN FOOD PRODUCTS Vs. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-07-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim protection sought by petitioner against demand notice from respondent — Dispute arose from license agreement for on-board catering services — Petitioner contended respondent illegally increased concession fee due to increase in train coaches, which was not permitted by India Law Library Docid # 2447510
(597) DALCHAND AHIR Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 10-07-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15 and 16 — Denial of appointment — Arbitrary and discriminatory action — Petitioner denied appointment as Special Education Teacher based on Non-recognition by NCTE, while RCI recognition was the relevant criterion for the post. India Law Library Docid # 2447515
(598) SHRI GANGA SINGH (HANDICAPPED) Vs. SMT. DEVI SINGH AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Section 20(3) — Maintenance — Major unmarried daughter — Application for maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when it should have been under Section 20(3) HAM Act — Court cannot refuse relief due to mentioning a wrong India Law Library Docid # 2447516
(599) BHERUSINGH Vs. KARULAL[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 10-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397, 401 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay in filing appeal — Rejection of appeal on a 12-day delay without considering merits is hyper-technical and defeats substantial justice — Courts should adopt a liberal approach for short delays to advance justice. India Law Library Docid # 2447517
(600) ROSHNI KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 10-07-2026 Review Jurisdiction — Scope and Limitations — A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise, and it is generally exercised for correction of a mistake, not to substitute a new view, unless there is a glaring omission or patent mistake in the original order. India Law Library Docid # 2447577