(821) DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF MEDICAL EDU. LKO[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 06-10-2026 Administrative Law — Reasoned Order — Cancellation of absorption — Petitioner was absorbed on the post of Junior Assistant upon the recommendation of a duly constituted Absorption Committee against an existing substantive vacancy — Impugned order cancelled the absorption alleging non-fulfilment of absorption rules without specifying which rule or provision was breached or inapplicable — Held, reasons are the heartbeat of conclusion — Failure to disclose any reasons or identify inapplicable rules India Law Library Docid # 2455735
(822) MANNE KRISHANK Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 35(3) — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 352 and 353(2) — Arrest — Offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or less — Compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines — Petitioner alleged arbitrary threat of arrest in connection with registered FIR — Offences invoked under Sections 353(2) and 352 BNS prescribe punishment of three years or less — Police directed to follow the mandate of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and issue notic India Law Library Docid # 2456205
(823) NARANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 — Rule 28 — APMC Election — Maintainability of writ petition during election process — Alternative remedy — Scope of judicial review — Objection was raised that disputes regarding inclusion or exclusion in the voters list must be relegated to an election petition under Rule 28 — Held, although courts generally refrain from interfering once an election process begins, jurisdiction under Article 226 is exe India Law Library Docid # 2456348
(824) AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(2) — Trap case — Proof of demand — Sine qua non — Prosecution must prove demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact — Mere recovery of tainted money from accused, absent proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction — Prosecution failed to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt, resting entirely on uncorroborated testimony of complainant where no independent India Law Library Docid # 2454628
(825) ADDL. COMMR. COMMERCIAL TAX AND OTHERS Vs. CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 — Schedule II Part IV Entry 20(ii) and Part VII Entry 1 — Classification of goods ('GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix') — Taxable event and incidence of taxation are determined by the nature and physical form of the good at the time of sale, not by its subsequent end use by the consumer India Law Library Docid # 2454629
(826) SUDHA RAKESH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Colourizing civil disputes into criminal offences — Tendency of litigants to give criminal colour to civil disputes is an open secret to prevent abuse of criminal process — Dispute arising out of agreement for sale and subsequent execution of sale deed in favour of ultimate buyer is purely civil in nature, lacking any element of criminality or foundational ingredients of cheating India Law Library Docid # 2454630
(827) PRASANTA KUMAR DHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes — In-laws — Supreme Court emphasized that criminalizing domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family — Courts must be circumspect and judicious, allowing invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials clearly constituting criminal India Law Library Docid # 2454631
(828) RUPALI KASHINATH SHIGWAN @ RUPALI AMOL JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 — Rule 17(7) — Powers of Scrutiny Committee — Vigilance Cell inquiry is meant for internal assistance and its findings are not binding on Scrutiny Committee — Committee possesses inherent powers to direct re-examination of specific suspect documents — Requirement to recor India Law Library Docid # 2454633
(829) ATUL ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 and Section 28 — Several instruments employed in single transaction — Scope and applicability — Where earlier development-cum-sale agreements accompanied by possession, consideration, and Powers of Attorney are followed years later by registered conveyances to perfect title, both sets of instruments constitute a single continuous transaction under Section 4. The applicability of Section 4 depends on the substance and connection between the instruments, not India Law Library Docid # 2454642
(830) ATUL ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 — Several instruments employed in single transaction — Execution of subsequent conveyance to perfect title — Earlier Development-cum-Sale Agreements of 1985 and 1996 were followed by delivery of possession, payment of consideration, and execution of powers of attorney — Formal Conveyance Deeds executed in 2012 — Held, the entire chain of documents must be evaluated to determine the real nature and substance of the transaction — Substantial delay between in India Law Library Docid # 2454651
(831) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD., YASHAD BHAWAN, UDAIPUR[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 32(1)(iia) — Additional depreciation — Eligibility — Generation of power — Assessee claimed additional depreciation on new plant and machinery installed at Captive Power Plant and Wind Power Plant — Electricity is movable property and falls within the purview of an "article or thing" — The expression "production" has a wider connotation than "manufacture", and generation of electricity amounts to production of an article or thing — Assessee was therefore entitled t India Law Library Docid # 2454846
(832) BUDH DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 24(iii) — Constitution of India — Articles 14, 21 and 243V — Disqualification from contesting municipal elections — Nature of electoral rights — Right to contest an election is purely a statutory right, not a fundamental or common law right, and remains subject to statutory limitations and eligibility conditions. Article 243V expressly recognizes the competence of the State Legislature to prescribe disqualifications. Section 24(iii), which disqualifie India Law Library Docid # 2454857
(833) M/S MANOJ SPARES AND SERVICE CENTER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 107(1) — Appeal to Appellate Authority — Commencement of limitation — Expression "communicated" — Meaning and scope — Limitation of three months to prefer an appeal under Section 107(1) commences from the date the order or decision is communicated to the aggrieved person — Communication mandates imparting actual or constructive knowledge effectively to enable the aggrieved party to seek statutory remedies — Power to condone delay is restricted t India Law Library Docid # 2454868
(834) HEERA DEVI W/O SHRI CHENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482) — Quashing of FIR — Scope of inherent powers — Cheating, forgery, and conspiracy — Petitioners sought quashing of FIR regarding fraudulent demarcation and fabricated service report — Held, inherent power to quash is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly — High Court cannot conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or hold a mini-trial at the quashing stage — Where allegations al India Law Library Docid # 2454876
(835) KALU CHANDALIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2) and 126(2) — Quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise — Trial court accepted compromise for compoundable offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) BNS, but declined for non-compoundable offences under Sections 117(2) and 109(1) BNS — High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS is wide and distinct from compounding power under procedural law — Inherent jurisd India Law Library Docid # 2454877
(836) BHAIRO LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 391 — Additional evidence at appellate stage — Nature and scope of power — Power of the Appellate Court to take additional evidence is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly and judiciously to advance justice — Such power is not intended to provide a party an opportunity to fill up lacunae left during trial or introduce material that was within its knowledge and possession without suffi India Law Library Docid # 2454878
(837) INDER SINGH RAJPUROHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Locus Standi — Maintainability of writ petition by rival competitor — Challenge to grant of access permission and No Objection Certificate for setting up a new retail fuel outlet — Appellant, an existing petrol pump dealer, challenged allotment of outlet to respondent on grounds of non-compliance with minimum distance guidelines — Held, a rival competitor in trade has no locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction to prevent another from carrying on business — India Law Library Docid # 2454835
(838) UNION TERRITORY OF J&K Vs. SHABIR AHMAD DAR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 05-10-2026 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439(2) — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Cancellation of bail — Grounds — Distinction between cancellation on account of post-bail misconduct and setting aside an order due to illegality or non-application of mind — Setting aside an unjustified, illegal, or perverse bail order is conceptually distinct from cancelling bail for supervening circumstances — Absence of subsequent misconduct or misuse of liberty does not preclude a supe India Law Library Docid # 2454936
(839) JAVED AHMAD BHAT AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Service Law — Scope of Writ Jurisdiction — Regularization of Contractual Employees — A Writ Court cannot usurp the position of the employer to declare contractual or daily-wage employees as deemed regularized with consequential service benefits. Doing so oversteps judicial boundaries. However, where an establishment operates permanently and relies on recurring contractual renewals, the Court may properly direct the competent employer authority to consider wh India Law Library Docid # 2454937
(840) ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 05-10-2026 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) — Court Fees Act, 1870 — Section 7(iv)(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Undervaluation of suit — Relief of mandatory injunction against licensee to vacate and handover possession — Plaintiff valued suit nominally under Section 7(iv)(d) — Trial Court directed correction of valuation and payment of court fees instead of rejecting plaint — Held, plaintiff's discretion in valuing suit for injunction is not absolute where substantive relief sough India Law Library Docid # 2454954