(121) S. NAGESH Vs. SHOBHA S. ARADHYA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138, Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) — Cognizance of offence — Limitation — Delayed complaint — Requirement to condone delay before taking cognizance — The power conferred under the Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) to take cognizance of a belated complaint is subject to the complainant first satisfying the Court that there was sufficient India Law Library Docid # 2437793
(122) S. SHAKUL HAMEED Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 163A and 166 — Nature of Claim — Interpretation — Claim Petition mentioning Section 163A, but seeking Rs.7,40,000/- compensation and alleging accident due to rash and negligent driving — Held, despite mentioning Section 163A, the nature of the claim is determined by the substance of the averments, which points to a claim under India Law Library Docid # 2437794
(123) GURUPADA BERA AND OTHERS Vs. BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Contempt of Court — Non-compliance with directions of Supreme Court and High Court — Directions stipulated payment of salary arrears (equivalent to basic pay of regular teachers) to part-time contractual teachers for specific periods and mandated consideration of further claims through representations, including a requirement for 'opportunity of hearing' and inspection of school records — Allegation that mandatory India Law Library Docid # 2437795
(124) PRASANNA KASINI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Transfer of Criminal Proceedings — Grounds for Transfer — Allegation of Bias — Criminal proceedings initiated by wife transferred from Sangareddy to Hyderabad on husband's request alleging bias due to wife's relatives (one Head Constable, one Junior Assistant) working in the relevant jurisdiction — High Court passed an ex parte transfer order — Supreme Court held that mere fact of a relative working as a Head Constable in a Police Station or in the District Court does not automatically lead to India Law Library Docid # 2437796
(125) GOLDEN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Auction of Public Property — Cancellation of Highest Bid — Arbitrariness — Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) cancelled appellant's highest bid for an industrial plot (3150 sq. m.) which was 15.23% above the reserve price, on the ground that the bid was "low" compared to prices achieved for "smaller plots" (123-132 sq. m.) auctioned on the same day — Held, the cancellation was arbitrary, whimsical, and irrational because the comparison between a large industrial plot with low demand and small India Law Library Docid # 2437797
(126) THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) — Quashing of Prosecution — Successful Trap Case — Where the allegation involves a successful trap for demand and acceptance of a bribe, and the disciplinary inquiry's exoneration was based on technical grounds (non-examination of the trap officer which the Enquiry Officer declined to summon, or witnesses standing outside the room), rather than a finding that the act did not occur, the criminal prosecution should not be quashed — The criminal court h India Law Library Docid # 2437798
(127) THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI Vs. KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 395(2), 218, 219, 220, 223 —Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 120B — Cheating of multiple investors under alleged criminal conspiracy — Amalgamation of complaints/FIRs — Whether each deposit constitutes a separate transaction requiring separate FIRs, or if all transactions can be clubbed into a single FIR (treating other complainants as witnesses) — High Court ruling requiring India Law Library Docid # 2437799
(128) ABHAY KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Service Law — Recruitment — Change in Rules Mid-Process — Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2019 — Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 (introducing Rule 8(5)) — The principle that ‘rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun’ is affirmed — Where selection process for Assistant Engineers commenced under 2019 Rules (mandating selection solely based on written India Law Library Docid # 2437800
(129) DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — Section 10(3), (5), (6) — Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Repealing Act) — Section 3, 4 — Acquisition of excess vacant land — Vesting vs. Possession — Consequence of Repeal — Vesting of land under Section 10(3) of ULC Act confers de jure possession (title/interests) on the State, but not de facto (actual physical) possession — Acquisition of title does India Law Library Docid # 2437801
(130) SMT. SHALINI BHATEJA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings — Power of Supreme Court — Petitioners sought quashing of FIR which was declined by High Court — Dispute between parties allegedly civil in nature, with multiple cases filed on the same facts in different jurisdictions — Supreme Court ordered the closing or disposal as "not pressed" of two parallel India Law Library Docid # 2437802
(131) DIVJOT SEKHON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Admission to Professional Courses — MBBS/BDS Admissions — Sports Quota — Changes in Criteria Mid-Stream — Principle against altering "rules of the game" after commencement of selection process: The criteria for admission, determining the zone of consideration for sports achievements, cannot be altered after the admission process has commenced (after the prospectus is issued and applications are submitted) — Modifying India Law Library Docid # 2437803
(132) JASWINDER SINGH @ SHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Criminal Law — Double Murder — Common intention or involvement via driving vehicle — Conviction solely based on appellant (accused) driving the vehicle in which assailants arrived — Evidence of key witness (PW-7, father of deceased) vague about appellant's direct role (overt act) in the crime proper — Statement regarding appellant dragging victim was omitted in the earlier police statement (Section 161 India Law Library Docid # 2437804
(133) IFGL REFRACTORIES LTD. Vs. ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Industrial Policy, 1989 — Overall financial limit (Amended Clause 4.4) — Applicability — The concept of overall financial limit introduced retrospectively applies only to expansion/modernisation/diversification of an existing unit — It does not apply to new industrial units, which are governed by Clause 4.1 and are entitled to incentives subject to unit-wise caps specified in Clauses 5.1 and 11.4.4 India Law Library Docid # 2437791
(134) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-01-2026 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Customs Act, 1962 — Classification of Imported Goods — Aluminium Shelves for Mushroom Growing — Classification dispute between CTI 76109010 (Aluminium Structures) and CTI 84369900 (Parts of Agricultural Machinery) — Classification must be determined by the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI), applied sequentially, prioritizing the terms of the headings and relative Section/Chapter Notes (GRI 1) — Reliance on statutory guidance (headings and notes) trumps other class India Law Library Docid # 2437790
(135) CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SHRI SHANKAR DAS BAIRAGI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Limitation for claiming gratuity — The Act of 1972 does not prescribe any period of limitation for claiming gratuity — Gratuity is payable, as per Section 7(3), within 30 days from the date it becomes payable (which is the date of exit from employment, Section 4(1)) — Rules framed under the Act, which suggest a limitation period (such as Rule 7(2) of the Central Rules or corresponding M.P. Rules), India Law Library Docid # 2437895
(136) ATHLETICS SANGH MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Read with Section 2(e) ("Court") — Meaning of "Court" — Defined as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (District Judge) — Application to set aside an arbitral award must ordinarily be filed before this Court unless transferred to a Commercial Court as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 India Law Library Docid # 2437896
(137) ATUL KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS Vs. RAMSAKHI DEVI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law (Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Section 26) — Where land subject of a title declaration suit has vested in Central Government following declaration of acquisition under Section 10 of the 1957 Act prior to filing of suit, the suit is barred by Section 26 of the 1957 Act as the only remaining question is India Law Library Docid # 2437897
(138) KAILASH PATHAK Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Service Law — Suspension Pending Enquiry — Nature of Suspension — Suspension is not a punishment but an interim administrative measure intended to facilitate a free, fair, and unbiased departmental enquiry, particularly essential in cases of grave allegations (such as forgery of public documents, misappropriation of funds, and abuse of public office) to prevent tampering with records, influencing witnesses, India Law Library Docid # 2437898
(139) ANCHAL AGRAWAL Vs. ARVIND AGRAWAL[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Family Court — Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting aside ex parte decree — Definition of "Hearing of the Suit"— Where the case was fixed for reconciliation/filing of written statement, and subsequently returned from Lok Adalat, the date fixed for regular court proceedings (after reference to Lok Adalat) was not a date fixed for "hearing of the suit" under India Law Library Docid # 2437909
(140) KANTA SETHI AND ANOTHER Vs. HANS RAJ AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 9, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 — Suit for Partition — Non-joinder of Necessary Parties — Intestate Succession — In a partition suit based on intestate succession, all legal heirs must be impleaded as co-sharers or necessary parties to ascertain the exact share of the plaintiff — Failure to implead five out of six siblings (daughters) of the deceased renders the suit defective for India Law Library Docid # 2437880