(661) ALJ RESIDENCY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. GEHLOT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 154 — Constitution of India — Articles 226 and 227 — Alternate statutory remedy — Direct writ petition challenging Deputy Registrar's order under Section 22(2) without exhausting revisional remedy under Section 154 — Violation of remit of remand is not an automatic ground to bypass statutory remedy — Direct petition is ordinarily not entertainable unless exceptions laid down in Whirlpool Corporation apply — However, where the writ petition w India Law Library Docid # 2455265
(662) JAVED ABDUL RASHID ANSARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 — Sections 95A, 16, 18 and 181 — Summary eviction — Jurisdiction of Executive Engineer — Eviction notices issued by Executive Engineer under Section 95A challenged on ground that power vests exclusively in the Board — Held, Board functions through its Chief Officer, who is recognized under Sections 16 and 18 as an officer charged with executing the Act — Chief Officer validly authorized Executive Engineer to initiate Section 95A proceedings — In India Law Library Docid # 2455269
(663) ASHIM CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER Vs. SHANTA ASHOK TOLAT[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 276 and 284 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Probate proceedings — Scope of pleadings in caveat — Inquiry into suspicious circumstances — Held, probate proceedings are fundamentally a matter of the conscience of the Court leading to a judgment in rem — Irrespective of whether specific pleas or objections are raised in the affidavit supporting the caveat, the propounder is obligated to satisfy the conscience of the Court by dispelling all suspiciou India Law Library Docid # 2455275
(664) MR. VINAY PALAPARTHY Vs. MR. A.M. EMANUEL[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(5) and 11(6) — Appointment of arbitrator — Locus standi to invoke arbitration clause — Petitioner invoked arbitration clauses contained in Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) executed between partnership firm, developer, and landowners — Petitioner was not a signatory to JDAs — Dispute was essentially an inter se dispute between persons claiming to be partners of the firm regarding alienation of firm assets — Dispute did not arise from JDAs, no India Law Library Docid # 2455276
(665) HIRA NAND SHARMA Vs. VIVEK KUMAR AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111 — Tenancy — Termination of contractual lease — Nature of continuing possession — Held, a person continuing in possession of accommodation after termination of contractual tenancy is not a wrongful occupant or trespasser until and unless a decree for eviction is passed by a competent court — Pendency of a civil dispute or a challenge to title does not by itself render long-standing possession unlawful — Continued possession pursuant to an originally va India Law Library Docid # 2455344
(666) SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 29 and 37 — Regular bail — Intermediate quantity — Recovery of 9.72 grams of heroin from vehicle occupied by petitioner and co-accused — Recovery not solely attributable to petitioner — Contraband recovered being less than commercial quantity, the statutory rigours under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply stricto sensu with full vigour — Charge-sheet already filed and India Law Library Docid # 2455353
(667) PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 438 — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — High Court does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its conclusion merely because an alternative view is possible — Discretion in revision is supervisory and intended to rectify a miscarriage of justice — Interference is impermissible unless findings of lower courts are perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly unr India Law Library Docid # 2455366
(668) NITHIN JOSE Vs. DIANA PAUL[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of matrimonial proceedings — Re-determination of territorial jurisdiction of Family Courts — High Court administratively recommended and State Government notified refixation of territorial jurisdiction of Family Courts on village basis to equalize pendency — Original petition transferred from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Aluva — Re-transfer sought alleging personal inconvenience — Held, transfer was a direct consequence of admi India Law Library Docid # 2455376
(669) THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. HAROON.K.A. AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Maintainability of writ petition against Co-operative Bank — Public law element — Co-operative Banks operate under the statutory supervision of the Reserve Bank of India and are governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Employment under a Co-operative Bank carries an element of a public nature — Consequently, where service or employment disputes involve an infringement of statutory rules or breach of public duty, a writ petition under Article 226 India Law Library Docid # 2455377
(670) ANU SHENNY Vs. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33-C(2) — Scope and nature of jurisdiction — Execution-like proceedings — Proceeding under Section 33-C(2) can be resorted to only to enforce an established or pre-existing right — It cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputes regarding the entitlement or basis of a claim — While an enquiry into the existence of a right may be conducted as incidental to computation, substantive adjudication to establish a right is outside the scope of Section 33-C(2) — A cla India Law Library Docid # 2455378
(671) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. PRAKASHAN P.V. AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 30 — Scope of interference with factual findings — Finding regarding employer-employee relationship — Commissioner is the competent authority to appreciate evidence and arrive at factual conclusions — High Court can intervene in an appeal under Section 30 only if there is patent perversity in the appreciation of evidence — Where an insurance company issued a policy covering the vehicle in favour of the person having possession and control of the vehicl India Law Library Docid # 2455379
(672) SMT. NIHAR KANA MAITY AND OTHERS Vs. BADAL MAITY AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 — Section 7(iv)(b) — Suit for declaration and permanent injunction — Ad valorem court fees — Challenged deed obtained by fraud — Predecessor of plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration of title, declaration that a registered deed obtained by misrepresentation was void and not binding, and permanent injunction restraining interference with possession. Trial court directed payment of ad valorem court fees based on the deed's valuation. High Court held that since t India Law Library Docid # 2455399
(673) FUNIDEA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. DILIP KUMAR GHOSH AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(xii) and Section 15 — Letters Patent (Calcutta), Clause 15 — Commercial dispute — Distinction between Shareholders' Agreement and Share Purchase Agreement — An agreement between existing shareholders and third-party outsiders to purchase entire share capital is a share purchase agreement, not a shareholders' agreement under Section 2(1)(c)(xii) — A shareholders' agreement presupposes pre-existing shareholding among parties — Order transferring suit t India Law Library Docid # 2455400
(674) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs. JOYSRI SENGUPTA AND ANR.[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction — Patent Illegality — Re-appreciation of evidence — The Court under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the statutory parameters and restrictions laid down under Section 34. The appellate court cannot undertake an independent reassessment on the merits of an arbitral award, nor substitute its own view for a plausible contractual construction adopted by the arbitrator. Re-appreciation of evidence is impermis India Law Library Docid # 2455401
(675) SAMAR KUMAR MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Electricity Act, 2003 — Sections 136 and 139 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Ingredients of offences — Damage to utility property — Petitioner accused of breaking a low-tension concrete utility pole — Petitioner had formally informed the electricity utility six years prior that the said pole was already broken, wireless, and hazardous — Culpability under Sections 136 and 139 requires proof of dishonest intention, malicious design, culpabl India Law Library Docid # 2455402
(676) GOSHREE ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GIDA) AND ANOTHER Vs. TRITVAM APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (TAOA) AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 — Sections 51 and 56 — Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 — Ownership and development authority over reclaimed land — Goshree-Chathiyath road and Queen's walkway situated on 25 hectares of reclaimed land assigned to GIDA under government patta — Kochi Corporation had not included property in its asset register — Single Judge held road and walkway vested in Corporation — Held, reversal warranted — Assignment of 25 hectares to GIDA for project execution confer India Law Library Docid # 2455423
(677) ABDURAHM??? Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 42, 50, and 57 — Search, seizure, and procedural compliance — Recovery of brown sugar — Police officer recorded secret information, forwarded report under Section 42, informed accused of right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer under Section 50, and conducted personal search in presence of Excise Circle Inspector — Samples collected in a tamper-proof manner and Section 57 report tendered — Testimony of police witnesses and Gaz India Law Library Docid # 2455424
(678) ANIL KUMAR R Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 — Proof of demand and acceptance — Essential ingredients — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) — Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to prove guilt without proof of demand — Demand and acceptance can be proved through direct oral, documentary, or circumstantial evidence — Once foundational facts of acceptance are established under Sect India Law Library Docid # 2455425
(679) UMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Section 4 — Release of offenders on probation of good conduct — Nature of offence and character of offender — Erroneous application by High Court — High Court released accused on probation of good conduct under Section 4 despite brutal attack causing severe, permanent, disabling, and grievous injuries to victim — High Court failed to consider criminal antecedents brought on record by prosecution and ignored the nature of the crime — Protracted trial cannot be a India Law Library Docid # 2455433
(680) M/S SHARDA TENT HOUSE Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Tender Process — Allegation of forged experience certificate — Disputed questions of fact — Petitioner (L2 bidder) challenged the award of contract to Respondent No. 4 (L1 bidder), alleging that the work completion certificate submitted by Respondent No. 4 was forged and confirmed as such by the issuing authority — Held, the issue raised requires a factual inquiry which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction — Court declined to directly adjudicate u India Law Library Docid # 2455459