(901) THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. AMITABH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Pension Scheme — Old Pension Scheme vs. New Pension Scheme — Government employee appointed prior to the cut-off date for New Pension Scheme appointed on a date after the cut-off due to permitted extension of joining time is entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits. India Law Library Docid # 2443677
(902) SOFIOR RAHMAN Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — No Second FIR for Same Offence — The law clearly states that there cannot be a second First Information Report (FIR) for the same cognizable offence or the same incident — Any subsequent information received after the start of an investigation into a cognizable offence disclosed in the India Law Library Docid # 2443724
(903) VICKY KHARSATI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 5 and 6 — Quashing of FIR — Consensual relationship between accused (21 years) and victim (17 years) at the time of FIR, later married and had two children — Court can quash POCSO case by consent in exceptional circumstances, considering local customs and India Law Library Docid # 2443725
(904) M/S. TATA STEEL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Writ Petition challenging Order-in-Original under CGST Act, 2017 — Alternative remedy of appeal exists — Bench held that writ petition should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances as per Whirlpool Corporation v — Registrar of Trademarks, such as where the action India Law Library Docid # 2443776
(905) ASHOK MINZ @ LADEN @ JAGIRA MINZ Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 354A and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Sections 8/12 — Conviction under these sections is not sustainable when the victim herself denies any bad intention or sexual molestation. India Law Library Docid # 2443777
(906) ANGSHUMAN SANTRA Vs. ARPITA SEN[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Rejection of Amendment — Family Court rejected petitioner's amendment application on the ground of failing to establish due diligence, despite issues not being framed — Held, the Family Court erred by applying the pro6so to India Law Library Docid # 2443778
(907) DEBASIS MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 2(1) — Land is leased out in favor of a person for cultivation and its record of rights are finally published in the name of the State — Section 15(b) of Odisha Survey and Settlement Act — Revisionary power — The Court observed that the petitioner, being a vendee from the lessee, cannot be expected to India Law Library Docid # 2443844
(908) DEVI PR.MOHANTY (DEAD) DEBIKA RANI MOHANTY AND ANOTHER Vs. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, ORISSA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Jurisdiction — The Member, Board of Revenue, while exercising revisional powers under Section 32 of the OSS Act, must confine its examination to the correctness of the order under challenge — It cannot delve into the validity of earlier orders that were not part of the appeal or revision before it. India Law Library Docid # 2443845
(909) DEEP SEA RESORT ANDAMAN PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Pecuniary Jurisdiction — Repayment of loan amounts does not constitute consideration paid for services rendered by the bank for determining pecuniary jurisdiction — Only amounts paid to avail bank services, like loan processing charges, can be considered. India Law Library Docid # 2444397
(910) MOHINDER PAL SINGH Vs. PAN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Deficiency in Service — Delayed Possession — Builder failed to deliver possession of housing units within the agreed timeline, including the grace period — Offer of possession without a valid India Law Library Docid # 2444398
(911) BALAJI COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY Vs. SRI PAL GUPTA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17(1)(a) and Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay Condonation — Delay in filing revision petitions was condoned due to sufficient reasons stated in applications. India Law Library Docid # 2444399
(912) BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE DENA BANK) Vs. M/S DUTTA WELDING & REPAIR WORKS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service by Bank — Bank took out an insurance policy for hypothecated assets but failed to include coverage for theft and burglary for the subsequent period — There was no intimation to the complainant nor their consent obtained before omitting this coverage — This omission constituted India Law Library Docid # 2444400
(913) VINEET VIDGE Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Insurance Law — Fire Claim — Repudiation of claim by insurance company based on worker's statement alleging owner's negligence in repairing an electric press leading to a fire — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found no India Law Library Docid # 2444401
(914) SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. SANTOSH CHILD & MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Medical services — Maintainability of complaint — A hospital is considered to be outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act only if medical services are provided entirely free of charge to all patients — If a hospital provides free services to some patients India Law Library Docid # 2444402
(915) KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21(b) — Insurance claim repudiation — Breach of policy condition — Arson — The claim could not be repudiated in full because the fire was a criminal act and there was no causal connection between the alleged commercial use and the fire — The insurer cannot avoid liability altogether India Law Library Docid # 2444403
(916) DR. SATISH KISHORANADN AROLKAR Vs. SUSHIL MUKESH GAGLANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2026 Consumer Protection Law — Deficiency in service — PRP Treatment — Complainant failed to prove negligence or unfair trade practice by medical practitioners despite seeking hair regrowth treatment, as personal body response varies and no expert evidence was presented to establish fault. India Law Library Docid # 2444404
(917) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 23-04-2026 Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 — Rule 2(e), Rule 3(r), Rule 12(b) — Counting of contractual service for pension — Where an employee, initially appointed on a contractual basis, is subsequently regularised without interruption of service, the provisions relating to "qualifying service" assume relevance — Rule 12(b) provides that qualifying service commences from the date a government servant takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed, whether substantively, or in an India Law Library Docid # 2444679
(918) LAL CHAND MORANI AND OTHERS Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 23-04-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Maintainability of writ petition against a private bank — A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private body only if its action involves a public duty or public function — Banking business, by itself, is a commercial activity and not a public duty or function — India Law Library Docid # 2445125
(919) MUNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 22-04-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Writ Petition Jurisdiction — Disputed Questions of Fact — Whether writ court can entertain matters involving disputed facts — Supreme Court in Real Estate Agencies case held that writ court is empowered to restrain State and its instrumentalities and is not debarred from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact, though ordinarily it would not, as a matter of prudence, India Law Library Docid # 2442610
(920) ASHISH KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 22-04-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226/227 — Writ of Certiorari — High Court's power is supervisory, not appellate — Does not review or reweigh evidence — Demolishes orders without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous — Does not substitute its own views — Refuses to upset illegal orders for substantial justice and equitable considerations. India Law Library Docid # 2442611