(181) MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Vs. SANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of judicial review — The court, while considering an application under Section 11, must confine its examination to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as mandated by the un-notified but effective Section 11(6-A) — The court's role is merely to inspect or scrutinize India Law Library Docid # 2437737
(182) NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Judicial Officer — Removal from Service — Misconduct — Judicial orders and grant of bail — A judicial officer, with 27 years of unblemished service, was removed based solely on four bail orders where Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (imposing twin conditions for bail) was not expressly mentioned, contrasted with 14 other India Law Library Docid # 2437738
(183) ANJANI SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 307, 504 read with 34 — Appreciation of Evidence — Sole Eye Witness Testimony (PW-1) — Reliability — Where a sole eye witness's testimony is wavering, inconsistent regarding the scene of the crime and the specific role of the accused, and where motive is alleged only against the PW but multiple innocent persons were killed at close range (suggesting targeted killing) without motive, the testimony India Law Library Docid # 2437739
(184) GULFISHA FATIMA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) — Section 43D(5) — Bail — Accused Sharjeel Imam — Role attributed is that of a "principal ideologue and early architect" of the alleged conspiracy, involving the creation of coordination platforms (WhatsApp groups), mobilization through pamphlets, and delivery of speeches advocating disruptive "Chakka Jam" (road blockage/paralysis of essential services) as India Law Library Docid # 2437740
(185) ADANI POWER LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (SEZ Act) — Section 30 — Customs Act, 1962 — Section 12 — Levy of Customs Duty on Electrical Energy — Clearance from Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) — Absence of Charging Event — Electrical energy generated in India within an SEZ and supplied to DTA is not ‘imported into India’ under Section 12 of the Customs Act — The deeming fiction in Section 30 of the SEZ India Law Library Docid # 2437741
(186) SUKHCHAIN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence — Fixed Term Sentence — Appellate Court's Approach — The High Court while considering an application for suspension of a fixed term substantive sentence passed by the Trial Court pending appeal must apply settled principles of law and consider the plea liberally, unless exceptional circumstances exist, in contrast to the approach India Law Library Docid # 2437833
(187) RAVINDER SINGH GANDOAK Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311A — Power of Magistrate to order specimen signatures or handwriting — Challenge to Magistrate's order directing Petitioner to give handwriting samples — Petitioner placed in Column 12 of Chargesheet (insufficient evidence) and claims never to have been arrested — Proviso to Section 311A mandates arrest as a condition for the order — Interpretation of Proviso: The proviso’s requirement that “the person has at some time been arrested” applies to an India Law Library Docid # 2437889
(188) MANOJ MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (GNCTD) AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court — Quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings — The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including the FIR and ensuing charge-sheet/charge orders, when the allegations, even if taken on face value, do not disclose the commission of cognizable offences or where the proceedings amount to an India Law Library Docid # 2437890
(189) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. KULWANT RAI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378(2)(b) — Appeal against acquittal — Powers of Appellate Court — Role of Appellate Court is to ensure justice; acquittal supported by overwhelming evidence of guilt should be set aside — Trial Court erred in disbelieving the complete prosecution case based on trivial discrepancies despite substantial evidence proving recovery and counterfeit nature of notes, and voluntary extra-judicial confession (statement under Section 108 Customs Act) India Law Library Docid # 2437891
(190) M/S. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. Vs. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ARMY HEADQUARTER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards — The scope of interference under Section 34 is limited and not appellate; it does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's view for that of the Arbitral Tribunal — Interference is warranted only on grounds expressly provided, such as patent illegality, perversity, or contravention of the India Law Library Docid # 2437892
(191) MOHD BURHAN AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI TRILOKI NATH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(e) — Bona fide requirement — Assessment date — The bona fide need of the landlord must be examined as on the date of the institution of the eviction proceedings — Once an eviction order is passed, the subsequent death of the landlord during the pendency of a review or appeal proceedings does not extinguish the right to obtain possession as the legal heirs are fully entitled to India Law Library Docid # 2437893
(192) KAMALKISHORE BAGHEL Vs. UDAY SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 05-01-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Claim for Compensation — Enhancement of Compensation — Assessment of Compensation — The Claims Tribunal's assessment of the claimant's income at Rs. 2,000/- per month and the overall compensation awarded were deemed fair and just, warranting no interference by the High Court — Claimants' appeal for enhancement dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2437899
(193) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HARISH CHANDRA SENGAR AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 05-01-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Maintainability of Claim Petition — Structured Formula — Section 163-A provides for a distinct scheme for immediate relief to a section of people whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-; claims of those earning above this limit must be determined under Chapter XII of the Act — If the claimant's asserted or proven annual income exceeds Rs. 40,000/-, the India Law Library Docid # 2437900
(194) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MERAMAN KARA MER AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Appellate court can interfere in acquittal only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment is found to be perverse — The court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, which is bolstered by the trial court's acquittal — Interference should be India Law Library Docid # 2437901
(195) NITINBHAI MAVJIBHAI SINOJIYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 — Section 65 — Non-Agricultural (NA) Permission — Scope of Authority — The competent authority while considering an application for NA permission under Section 65 only has the power to ascertain if the applicant is the 'occupant' of the land and is not empowered to examine or determine the applicant's title to the land in question. India Law Library Docid # 2437902
(196) HEIRS L.R. OF DECD. THAKARDAKODARJI VIRAJI AND OTHERS Vs. MARWADI CHAMPAKLAL MANGILAL AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Jurisdiction — Substantial Question of Law — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 is circumscribed and can be exercised only in relation to a substantial question of law—A question of law is 'substantial' if it is debatable, not settled by law or binding precedent, and materially affects the rights of the parties India Law Library Docid # 2437903
(197) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. DEVKUMAR SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Appellate court must consider whether the trial court’s view is a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed — An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused (double presumption) — Appellate court must be relatively slow in reversing an India Law Library Docid # 2437912
(198) KARIMAN (DIED) THROUGH LR AND OTHERS Vs. JAINATH (DIED) THROUGH LRS: AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 65 — Suit for Possession of Immovable Property based on Title — Limitation Period — Adverse Possession — The limitation period for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title is twelve years, commencing from the date when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff (Article 65) — Where the plaintiff became aware that the defendant was in India Law Library Docid # 2437913
(199) M.A. RAFI (DEAD ) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. EJAZURRAHMAN AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact — The concurrent finding of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their plea of ownership based on an oral Hiba (gift), cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal unless found to be perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2437914
(200) RAMANUJ SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHILAI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — First Appeal — Setting aside of Trial Court Judgment — Declaration of Title, Possession, Demolition and Injunction — Property declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA) — Challenge to ULCRA orders: Status and Effect after Repeal — Where ULCRA proceedings were challenged pre-Repeal Act, and subsequent India Law Library Docid # 2437915