(761) YASIR RAJA @ MANJAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope and limits — High Court does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate or reassess evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from concurrent findings recorded by courts below — Interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted only where the impugned findings suffer from patent illegality, manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or result in a gross miscarriage of justice — Concurren India Law Library Docid # 2455248
(762) RAJENDRA PRASAD SAW AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of interference — High Court exercising revisional power does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate or reassess evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from concurrent findings of courts below — Revisional interference is warranted only when impugned findings suffer from patent illegality, manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or result in gross miscarriage of justice — Concurre India Law Library Docid # 2455249
(763) RAJESH KUMAR SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323 and 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Rape and assault of minor — Medical evidence versus oral testimony — Victim alleged she resisted the assault and was slapped and gagged, but medical examination revealed no injury marks on her body or private parts, and the examining doctor could not confirm sexual assault — Absence of any medical evidence or bodily injury contradicted the victim's narrative of violent struggle — E India Law Library Docid # 2455250
(764) STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. SHIV RATAN PRASAD GUPTA AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 3 and Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 445 days in filing appeal by State — Bureaucratic delay — State sought condonation citing procedural movement of files and approvals across administrative tables — Held, unexplained delay must be dealt with strictly — A clear distinction exists between a valid explanation and a mere excuse — Bureaucratic indolence and red tape cannot justify inordinate delay — Law of limitation binds the State equally as private lit India Law Library Docid # 2455227
(765) SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311 read with Section 91 — Additional evidence at belated stage — Mechanical exercise of discretion — Prosecution moved an application to exhibit nine documents when trial was fixed for arguments, without specifying the witnesses to be examined or the mode of proving the documents — Magistrate allowed the application without considering the relevancy of the documents — Held, discretionary power under Section 311 cannot be exercised mechanically — Or India Law Library Docid # 2455238
(766) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRI SRINIVASA BN[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 213(4) — Recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors — Prescribed qualification — Work experience of at least one year in workshop repairing LMVs, HGVs, and HPVs — Aggregate vs individual experience — Rejection of candidature — Rule did not prescribe separate one-year experience in each category of vehicles — Combined or aggregate experience across workshops satisfying the one-year threshold is sufficient — Where ambiguity or vagueness exists in prescribing eligibi India Law Library Docid # 2455285
(767) SRI PUTTEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 — Section 25B(6)(iii) — Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner — Hereditary Archakship — Inter se dispute — Deputy Commissioner recognized hereditary archakship and fixed rotational worship among family members — Held, jurisdiction under Section 25B(6)(iii) is strictly confined to determining whether an office is held on hereditary basis — It does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate inter se civil disputes, suc India Law Library Docid # 2455288
(768) THARADEVI Vs. R.DEVENDRA @ DEVENDRAKUMAR SHARMA[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ib) — Dissolution of marriage — Desertion — Essential ingredients — Wife leaving matrimonial home repeatedly for parental abode but resuming cohabitation upon intervention of elders and panchayatadars — Offence of desertion requires intentional permanent forsaking and total repudiation of marital obligations without consent or reasonable cause — Factum of separation and animus deserendi must co-exist — Temporary sepa India Law Library Docid # 2455296
(769) KUSHAL @ DHANUSH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 61(2), 296(b) and 103(1) — Regular bail — Murder charge — Prolonged incarceration and commencement of trial — Appellants detained in custody since August 2025 following an alleged fatal knife attack — Preventive detention order previously quashed — Trial had commenced before the Sessions Court — Held, considering the period of custody, progress of trial, and nec India Law Library Docid # 2455300
(770) PARAMESHWARI. P. Vs. NO RESPONDENT[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(2)(a) — Natural guardian's power to alienate minor's immovable property — Legal necessity and welfare of minor — Mother sought permission to sell minor daughter's undivided 1/10th share along with other co-owners — Property was dilapidated, yielding no income, and undivided share could not be dealt with independently — Mother had no independent income and required funds for minor's maintenance and education — Sale held to be for legal necessi India Law Library Docid # 2455308
(771) KANZEON PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 — Section 31(2) and Section 31(3) — Madras High Court (Appellate Side Rules), 1965 — Rule 2(5) — Maintainability and Bench jurisdiction — Appeal against rejection of registration under Section 12(2) — Deemed decree of civil court — Order incapable of monetary valuation — Held, as the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act is a special statute and appeals under various special enactments are placed before a Division Bench, an appeal preferred under Secti India Law Library Docid # 2455314
(772) NAMBIRAJAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376 and 417 — Rape — Alleged promise of marriage — Consensual physical relationship — Parties in prohibited degree of relationship — Victim, aged 28 years, was the aunt of the appellant and admitted knowing that their community prohibited marriage between aunt and nephew — Parties were in love for over a year and engaged in physical relations — Held, victim's claim that she submitted to sexual relations believing appellant's promise of marriage was unbelievable — Inte India Law Library Docid # 2455316
(773) K.MANIKANDAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Tender and Contract Law — Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit — Non-execution of agreement — Petitioner emerged as successful bidder and was issued Letter of Acceptance — Model Code of Conduct intervened, but even after it ceased to operate, petitioner failed to execute the agreement — Tender conditions expressly authorised forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit if the bidder failed to execute the agreement within the stipulated timeframe — Since the contract was not signed within a reasonable time India Law Library Docid # 2455317
(774) R.ARULSHANTHI AND ANOTHER Vs. S. VICKRAM[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — Section 17 — Minor custody — Welfare of the child — Primacy over statutory rights of natural guardian — Family Court awarded custody to biological father solely based on his status as natural guardian — Held, a child is not movable property to be claimed or transferred merely on the strength of legal entitlement or superior financial capacity — Welfare of the minor is the paramount and supreme consideration — Father's status as natural guardian cannot mechanically India Law Library Docid # 2455318
(775) VARSHINI Vs. SASIDHARAN[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of matrimonial and custody proceedings — Preference to convenience of wife — Husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and guardianship petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 at Coimbatore — Wife resided with her parents and 31/2-year-old minor son at Srivilliputhur, approximately 258 km away — Held, in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife must predomina India Law Library Docid # 2455322
(776) KANZEON PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 — Section 31(2), 31(3) — Madras High Court (Appellate Side Rules), 1965 — Rule 2(5) — Forum of appeal — Rejection of registration application — Section 31(3) deems the appeal under the Act to be an appeal from an original decree — Since the order impugned under the special statute is incapable of monetary valuation, the overall statutory scheme of the Appellate Side Rules requires the appeal to be heard and determined by a Division Bench. India Law Library Docid # 2455328
(777) TOMCO KAMGAR UNION Vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 36 — Representation of Workmen — Locus Standi of Trade Union — Maintainability of writ petition challenged on ground that petitioning union was not a party to the reference before Industrial Tribunal — Held, a trade union is merely a representational vehicle to espouse collective grievances of workers, who are the ultimate beneficiaries — Where an erstwhile union becomes non-functional, workmen are entitled to reorganize under a new union to pursue their c India Law Library Docid # 2455266
(778) MANJIRA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAHUL H. BAJAJ AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 46 and 46A — Execution of decree — Garnishee proceedings — Attachment of debt — Appellant challenged the attachment of a debt under an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), contending that the amount received was a mobilization advance liable to forfeiture and not an admitted, crystallized debt — Held, where receipt of funds is undisputed and the contemplated transaction of land acquisition has failed, a party cannot resist garnishee at India Law Library Docid # 2455268
(779) UNION OF INDIA Vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 31(5) and 34(3) — Delivery of signed copy of arbitral award — Meaning of "signed copy" — Section 31(5) does not mandate delivery of only the original physical award bearing ink signatures — Keeping pace with technological advancement, transmission of an authentic scanned copy via WhatsApp or delivery of a colour photostat copy bearing the arbitrators' signatures constitutes valid delivery — Limitation period under Section 34(3) for challenging th India Law Library Docid # 2455270
(780) THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs. CHUGOKU MARINES PAINTS S PTE LTD[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3), Proviso — Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 2(j) and 4 — Condonation of delay — Applicability of Section 4 of Limitation Act to extendable 30-day period — The prescribed period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34(3) is three months. The discretionary period of 30 days under the proviso is merely an extendable period and not the "prescribed period". Therefore, the benefit under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which allows India Law Library Docid # 2455271