(681) RAJESH KUMAR NIGAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Section 7(3A) — Central Government Notification dated 01.10.1987 — Delayed payment of gratuity — Entitlement to interest — Petitioner retired in 2017, but retiral dues including gratuity were illegally withheld by employer until paid in 2025 following dismissal of employer's Special Leave Petition — Held, interest is payable from the date it becomes due — As petitioner was deprived of dues without fault, respondents are directed to pay simple interest at 10% per a India Law Library Docid # 2455461
(682) VINEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Service Law — Selection Process — Assistant Teacher — Disqualification on ground of Domicile — Denial of appointment despite securing higher quality point marks — State rejected appellant's candidature asserting a policy that holding a Permanent Resident Certificate of another State entails disqualification — Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition solely relying on State's instructions without granting petitioner an opportunity to rebut — Held, when disputed factual questions arise regardi India Law Library Docid # 2455462
(683) BHUPENDRA SINGH MEHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Compounding application — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing and closure of criminal proceedings — Applicant-husband sought closure of criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code — Joint compounding application supported by affidavits filed — Complainant-wife appearing through video conferencing confirmed that disputes were settled amicably and stated she did not want to pur India Law Library Docid # 2455463
(684) DEEPANSHU BANSAL Vs. POONAM BHATT[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 29 — Infringement and Deceptive Similarity — Anti-dissection rule — Comparison of composite marks — Conflicting marks must be compared in their entirety as a whole and not dissected into individual components or compared microscopically — The trial court erred in dissecting the competing marks "SUNAREKA" and "SWARNIKA" and focusing solely on spelling variations — The commercial impression created on an average purchaser of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recol India Law Library Docid # 2455438
(685) SMT. RIHANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Essential prerequisite of illegal detention — Production of spouse — Petitioner-wife filed habeas corpus petition seeking production of her husband, alleging that he left the matrimonial home with another woman — Held, it was not the case of the petitioner that her husband had been detained by any person against his will and consent — In the absence of unlawful detention or wrongful confinement, extraordinary writ jurisdiction o India Law Library Docid # 2455449
(686) PARSHU TANDI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37(1)(b) and Section 20(b)(ii)(C) — Grant of bail for commercial quantity — Twin conditions — Section 37 imposes a statutory bar on granting bail for offences involving commercial quantities unless the prosecution is heard and the court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — "Reasonable grounds" connote substantial probable causes justify India Law Library Docid # 2455565
(687) SHAMINA NAZ AND ANOTHER Vs. RIMSHA TAASHFEEN AND ANOTHER[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — Sections 7 & 17 — Mahomedan Law — Mother's appointment as guardian of minor's property — Mother is not a legal guardian of a minor's property as of right under Mahomedan Law and cannot alienate property as a de facto guardian. However, in the absence of legal guardians specified under personal law, the Court is competent under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 360 of Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law to appoint the mother as guardian if it serves the minor' India Law Library Docid # 2455570
(688) UMAKANTA MISHRA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, OFDC LTD. AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Natural justice — Non-supply of enquiry report — Petitioner, a Daily Labour Rate employee, faced disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence and misconduct — Inquiry Officer held charges proved but recommended regularization on humanitarian grounds — Disciplinary authority terminated petitioner's services without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report prior to imposing major penalty, violating Rule 124(15)(b) of the Service Rules — Omission to serv India Law Library Docid # 2455571
(689) SATYABAN BEHERA Vs. PRAVAT TRIPATHY, I.I.C, ANGUL TOWN, P.S/AT/P.O/DISTRICT-ANGUL[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(b) and Section 12 — Civil Contempt — Wilful Disobedience — Delayed Compliance — Essentiality of Mens Rea — Element of mens rea is indispensable for sustaining a charge of civil contempt — A breach must be deliberate and intentional to constitute contempt — Jurisdiction under the Act is intended to uphold the majesty of law rather than penalize mere administrative laxity — Mens rea cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay in complying with court India Law Library Docid # 2455572
(690) NITISH KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Criminal Law — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 368, 109, 313 and 34 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 6 and 17 — Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. — Complainant lodged an FIR alleging kidnapping of her daughter — Victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. did not implicate the petitioner and stated that she was in a relationship with him — Investigation culminated in charge-sheet under IPC and POCSO Act — Petitioner ap India Law Library Docid # 2455574
(691) RAJU POLA @ VENKATESHAM POLA Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 318(4) and 338 — Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 7 — Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 29 — Quashing of FIR — Spurious fertilizer — Petitioner allegedly conspired to manufacture and sell spurious DAP fertilizer packed in bags resembling reputed brands to cheat innocent farmers and received sale proceeds — Allegations in complaint and material gathered during ongoing investigation prima facie India Law Library Docid # 2455585
(692) SRI SWAPAN DEB ROY Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 118, Section 138 and Section 139 — Statutory presumption — Reverse onus — Standard of proof — Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises under Section 139 once cheque execution is admitted or proved — The presumption operates in favor of the holder to prevent undue delay in commercial disputes — A bare denial or vague assertion by the accused is insufficient to discharge the burden — The accused must establish a probable defence under the standard o India Law Library Docid # 2455603
(693) SRI ARJUN SARKAR Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 279 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 179, 181 and 184 — Rash and negligent driving — Disobeying police signal — Accused drove a vehicle at high speed, ignored police signals to halt, and dashed into the official vehicle of the SDPO before being chased and apprehended — Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses who consistently established rash driving, damage to the police vehicle, and evasion of authority — Defence failed to shatter witness credibility durin India Law Library Docid # 2455604
(694) KUMAR RAM RANJAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Review Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Review Petition — State of Bihar filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in earlier writ proceedings — Counsel representing the review petitioner submitted on instructions that the State sought to withdraw the review petition — High Court accepted the submission and dismissed the review petition along with any pending applications as withdrawn. India Law Library Docid # 2455620
(695) MASIHA SERVICES INFRA PVT. LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Government Contracts — Outstanding Dues — Supply of food to hospital patients — Tender awarded for supplying meals to patients across government health centers — Substantial bills withheld due to lack of fund allotment and non-certification of food supply registers — State conceded liability of Rs. 5,65,299/- upon verification of partial claims, while petitioner asserted claims pertaining to 18 hospitals — Relief sought for payment of entire outstandin India Law Library Docid # 2455622
(696) ZAKIR AND OTHERS Vs. BUNDU AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026 U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 — Rule 25 — Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Applicability of special limitation for substitution — Mere existence of a landlord-tenant dispute or pendency of proceedings before a Court of Small Causes does not automatically attract Rule 25 — Procedural rules framed under a special enactment govern proceedings only where the subject premises and proceedings fall within the statutory field of that enactment — Whe India Law Library Docid # 2455712
(697) GAREEBA Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE LKO AND 2 OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 07-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Abuse of process of Court — Attempted withdrawal of writ petition — Petitioner filed writ petition supported by forged documents, including a fraudulent Aadhaar Card, which remained uncontroverted — Upon disclosure of forgery by the State, petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition — Held, the practice of taking a chance and seeking withdrawal when confronted with fraud is deprecated — Recourse to fraud interferes with administration of justice a India Law Library Docid # 2455730
(698) RAGHUBANSH PRASAD PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMNICATION NEW DELHI[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 07-10-2026 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Imposition of composite penalties — Legality of combining major and minor penalties — Disciplinary Authority imposed composite punishment consisting of reversion in rank (major penalty), recovery of amount, and placement at bottom of seniority list (minor penalties) — Held, a Disciplinary Authority cannot, by the same order, impose a major penalty together with minor penalties — Disciplinary Authority acts illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing bo India Law Library Docid # 2455731
(699) SAJID HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 07-10-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138, Section 142(1)(b) Proviso — Condonation of delay — Right of accused to be heard — Natural justice — Audi alteram partem — Complaint under Section 138 filed beyond limitation period along with delay condonation application — Magistrate allowed delay condonation ex-parte without notice to the accused and summoned him — Held, audi alteram partem is a cardinal principle ensuring fairness — Accused possesses a substantive right to file objections and be India Law Library Docid # 2455732
(700) SHASHWAT KESARWANI AND ANOTHER Vs. ANIL KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 07-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(a) — Rejection of plaint — Disclosure of cause of action — Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction — Plaint averred that registered agreement to sell was executed, substantial consideration was paid, and plaintiff received credible information that original defendants intended to alienate the property to third parties — Cause of action constitutes a bundle of material facts necessary for plaintiff to prove to obtain relief — Threa India Law Library Docid # 2455733