(841) MALCOLM JOHN CAMPBELL Vs. THE ROBBINS CO. AND ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of foreign parent company — Tortious liability — Plaintiff suffered employment injury with Indian subsidiary — Single Judge initially deleted foreign parent company citing separate corporate entities and lack of privity — Division Bench reversed deletion, holding that fastening tortious liability on a parent entity requires appreciation of evidence, and re-impleaded it — Supreme Court affirmed re-impleadment while keeping open the questi India Law Library Docid # 2454303
(842) SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA & ANR. Vs. UOI & ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 — Determination of market value — Parity with commercial exemplars — Landowners sought enhancement citing earlier decision awarding Rs. 1,12,500/- per square yard for Nehru Place land — Held, proximity to commercial centres cannot justify parity when acquired land is recorded as "Khal Land" and "Gair Mumkin Park" with restricted permissible user — Prices of developed commercial plots cannot govern large undeveloped tracts intended for green development — P India Law Library Docid # 2454304
(843) KERALA POLICE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(c), Article 19(4) and Article 33 — Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 — Section 3 — Right to form and continue Association — Police force — Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) is not confined to the initial stage of formation but extends to continuing the association with voluntarily chosen members — While Article 33 permits Parliament to restrict rights of police forces to ensure proper discharge of duties and discipline, India Law Library Docid # 2454243
(844) THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS Vs. S. MENAKA[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Service Law — Promotion — Lack of mandatory service qualification — Responsibility of Department — Petitioner had a shortfall of 3 months and 13 days in completing the mandatory two-year service as Firka Revenue Inspector because, upon returning from maternity leave, she was administratively posted as Special Revenue Inspector (Land Acquisition) — Held, a government servant cannot be denied promotion for want of service qualification if they were not given the opportunity to acquire it by the de India Law Library Docid # 2454560
(845) SARAVANA KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 37, 8(c), 20(b)(II)(c), 25 and 29(1) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389 — Suspension of sentence — Commercial quantity — Seizure of 440 kg of Ganja — Convicts sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment sought suspension of sentence pending appeal — Held, considering the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, nature of allegations, and materials placed before Trial Court, High Court cannot record the mandatory India Law Library Docid # 2454561
(846) M.ABISHEK Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing person — Petitioner sought production of his father who went missing amidst matrimonial disputes, maintenance arrears, financial liabilities, and pending non-bailable warrants — Respondents contended that the missing person was evading liabilities and not under illegal detention — Held, unlawful detention is a sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus — A habeas corpus petition concerning India Law Library Docid # 2454564
(847) KANHAILAL SAMADHIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 — Rule 20 — Service Law — Deputation — Disciplinary action by borrowing department after repatriation — Petitioner on deputation from Special Armed Force (SAF) to Special Task Force (STF) was repatriated to parent department — STF issued charge-sheet and appointed enquiry officer five years after repatriation — Scope of Rule 20 — Borrowing department can exercise disciplinary powers only while master-servant relations India Law Library Docid # 2454548
(848) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. IQBAL[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 227 and 228 — Framing of charge and discharge — Scope and principles — At the stage of framing charge, the Court cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must consider broad probabilities of the case without conducting a roving inquiry or trial — Even a grave suspicion suffices — However, where admitted material collected by the investigating agency in the final report fails to disclose basic ingredients of the alleged offe India Law Library Docid # 2454550
(849) SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 — Review jurisdiction — Scope and limitations — Review proceedings are strictly confined to statutory grounds, namely discovery of new and important evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reasons — Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise to rehear and correct an alleged erroneous decision — An error requiring elaborate debate, scrutiny, India Law Library Docid # 2454554
(850) MR. AISWARYA YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Sections 132(1) and 132(5) — Anticipatory bail — Maintainability upon filing of criminal complaint — Revenue contended that issuance of appearance notices does not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest — Held, filing of a complaint alleging cognizable and non-bailable offences does not assure the accused that they will not be remanded to judicial custody upon appearance before the Magistrate India Law Library Docid # 2454588
(851) BRIJENDRANATH AND OTHERS Vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Sections 16 and 17 — Territorial jurisdiction — Suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction concerning properties situated in different States — Part of suit properties situated in Chhattisgarh and part in Madhya Pradesh — Defendants objected to territorial jurisdiction contending property in Madhya Pradesh was outside court's limits — Held, Section 17 CPC engrafts an exception to Section 16 CPC — Where a suit concerns immovable property s India Law Library Docid # 2454597
(852) ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. TAMILARASAN M. AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order XLVII Rule 1 — Review jurisdiction — Scope and limitations — Rehearing impermissible — Review petition seeking recall of order directing re-evaluation of postgraduate examination — Held, review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction merely because another view is possible — Re-appraisal of material already on record is impermissible — A review is maintainable only when an error apparent on the face of the re India Law Library Docid # 2454598
(853) BHAGWANO YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 14-A(2), 18 and 18-A — Anticipatory bail — Statutory bar — Scope of judicial scrutiny — Sections 18 and 18-A bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, if the FIR and supporting materials do not disclose a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, the statutory bar does not operate and courts retain the jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail. A duty is ca India Law Library Docid # 2454571
(854) JAI HIND SINDHU EDUCATION TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — Section 132(1)(b) — Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — Section 9 — Property tax exemption — Public charitable purpose — Educational institution — Imparting education per se cannot be regarded as an absolute charitable purpose for municipal property tax exemption — To claim exemption, an institution must demonstrate an element of philanthropy and public benefit — If educational activity is carried out with a profit motive or on commercial lines, i India Law Library Docid # 2454639
(855) SHARAD DAYARAM SHINDE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 3(5), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) — Anticipatory Bail — Large-scale employment and salary fraud — Applicant, functioning as Trust Chairman, allegedly appointed 32 teaching and non-teaching staff between 2022 and 2024 by falsely showing their appointments from 2011-2012 — State funds exceeding Rs. 3.66 crores fraudulently drawn towards salary arrears and siphoned into bank accounts of Appl India Law Library Docid # 2454640
(856) VINAYAK POPAT WALE AND OTHERS Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Service Law — Public Employment — Prescribed eligibility criteria — Power of employer vs Judicial review — Posts of Junior Engineer — Recruitment Rules prescribed three-year Diploma in Engineering — Petitioners holding only Engineering Degrees claimed eligibility contending higher qualification impliedly satisfied the minimum requirement — Held: Employer is best suited to determine relevance, utility, and suitability of qualifications based on duties and responsibilities — Courts in judicial rev India Law Library Docid # 2454641
(857) M/S GANESH LAND DEVELOPERS & CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRADHHA REALTORS AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 6-A — Counter-claim by defendant — Scope, nature and limitations — A counter-claim can be set up in respect of any right or claim on an independent cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff — Cause of action need not arise from, relate to, or have any nexus with the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff — Identity of property between the suit and counter-claim is not mandatory — Only limitation under Rule 6-A is that the ca India Law Library Docid # 2454643
(858) PAWAN SUBHASH SARKALE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 383 and 385 — Extortion — Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion — Essential ingredients — Settlement talks between flat purchasers and developer — Flat owners demanded compensation and indicated pursuing pending consumer litigation — Held, the threat must be intentional and of such gravity as to mentally unsettle the person and vitiate free consent — Merely demanding a disproportionate or exorbitant settlement sum does not constitute exto India Law Library Docid # 2454644
(859) FILM & TELEVISION INSTITUTE OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. JAVED RASUL BANEDAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Labour and Industrial Law — Employer-Employee Relationship — Contract Labour — Sham Arrangement — Seven workmen initially engaged directly by FTII on daily wages were subsequently routed through successive contractors while continuing to perform identical duties under FTII's control and supervision — Applying the tests in Balwant Rai Saluja, the High Court held that continuous deployment of the same workers across multiple contractors, coupled with initial direct employment and wage payments by India Law Library Docid # 2454645
(860) RUSHABH SEALINK AND LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HAPAG-LLOYD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 17 — Priority between application for rejection of plaint and amendment of plaint — Where an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 goes to the root of the suit, such as a statutory bar or lack of cause of action, it must be heard and decided prior to an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 — If a suit is barred by law upon presentation, the defect is incurable and the court cannot grant time or consider amen India Law Library Docid # 2454646