(241) RAVURI PRASHANTH Vs. K RAMU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Negligence — Proof and appreciation of evidence — Non-examination of driver — Claimant sustained grievous injuries when an auto-rickshaw dashed against his motorcycle — Criminal case registered against the driver culminated in a conviction — Claimant established the accident through ocular evidence and police records, while the driver remained ex parte and failed to testify — Held, non-examination of the driver, who was the best witness to explain the occurrence, is fa India Law Library Docid # 2454968
(242) PERUGU PRABHAKAR REDDY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Binding nature of Civil Court Decree — Waqf Board filed a civil suit for possession declaring the subject land as wakf property, which was dismissed on merits in 1970, holding the property was not wakf — Decree attained finality as no appeal was preferred — Subsequent addendum notification or inclusion of land as wakf property is barred by res judicata — The executive cannot sit in appeal, review, or overturn a binding judicial decre India Law Library Docid # 2454969
(243) THE SENIOR COMMANDANT AND ANOTHER Vs. G PRATHAPAN[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 — Section 18 — Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 — Rule 36 — Disciplinary Proceedings — Gross Misconduct — Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authority — Respondent constable dismissed for collecting huge sums from candidates promising CISF jobs — Single Judge set aside dismissal holding Section 18 applies only when complainant is a co-employee — Held, collecting money under false promise of employment in the Force constitutes grave misconduct in India Law Library Docid # 2454988
(244) TADIBOINA GOPAIAH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21, and 226 — Police Act, 1861 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Police interference in civil disputes — Scope of jurisdiction — Adjudication of civil disputes and property rights falls exclusively within the domain of the judiciary — Police authorities have no statutory or adjudicatory power to interfere with, determine, or settle civil rights inter se parties — Coercive power of the State cannot be deployed to compel compromise in civil mat India Law Library Docid # 2454990
(245) PANDRAJU ANUSHA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Police Act, 1861 — Jurisdiction of Police — Interference in Civil and Property Disputes — High Court held that the police have no statutory power or jurisdiction to adjudicate, determine, or interdict civil rights of parties or coerce settlements in property disputes. Resolving civil and title disputes falls exclusively within the constitutional and statutory domain of the judiciary and civil courts. Police authorities attempting to usurp adjudicatory India Law Library Docid # 2454991
(246) RAHUL AGRAWAL Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16 and 226 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 20 and 21 — Equal Opportunity Policy — Transfer of caregiver — Judicial review — General policy versus special policy — Although transfer is an ordinary incidence of service, judicial review is permissible where an order is arbitrary or violates binding statutory policies — An Equal Opportunity Policy framed under Section 21 of the 2016 Act creates a binding statutory obligation rather than India Law Library Docid # 2455074
(247) VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-10-2026 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Sections 4 and 12 — Service Law — Compassionate appointment — Termination for alleged suppression of conviction — Benefit of probation granted — Statutory effect — Conviction under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act where probation was granted under Section 4 — Section 12 removes any disqualification attaching to conviction — Disclosure would not have rendered employee disqualified — Alleged non-disclosure did not result in securing an employment otherwise d India Law Library Docid # 2455082
(248) VIKRAMADITYA SINGH RAGHAV Vs. THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (RALSA) AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-10-2026 Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, 2022 — Clauses 4 and 6 — Termination of contractual engagement — Competence of Authority — Clause 4 provides for contractual engagement of Defence Counsels initially for two years with yearly extensions approved by Executive Chairman, SLSA — Clause 6 specifically empowers Chairman, DLSA to terminate services of any legal aid defence counsel at any time without prior notice on grounds including breach of duty, professional incapacity, or unsatisfactory performanc India Law Library Docid # 2455083
(249) RAMCHARAN MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-10-2026 Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 — License — Termination upon death — Recovery against deceased licensee — A distribution license is not an inheritable instrument and stands automatically terminated upon the death of the licensee. Where the licensee was never served with any notice of irregularity or financial loss during his lifetime, initiating recovery proceedings twelve years after his death against a dead person cannot be countenance India Law Library Docid # 2455084
(250) SHAIKH MUJTABA FAROOQ AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 154, 156(3) and 200 — Writ seeking registration of FIRs for hate speech — Alternative efficacious remedy — Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies provided under criminal procedure for non-registration of FIRs — Unauthenticated media clippings and selective speech excerpts cannot form the basis of a writ without regular investigation — Since statutory remedies under the Cod India Law Library Docid # 2455089
(251) M/S APARNA COLLECTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 74(2) read with Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017 — Limitation for issuance of Show Cause Notice — Date on Form GST DRC-01 — Form GST DRC-01 is an electronic summary consequential to the substantive Show Cause Notice (SCN) and does not substitute it — Statutory limitation under Section 74(2) attaches to the issuance of substantive notice under Section 74(1) — Fact that Form GST DRC-01 bears a subsequent date beyond limitation cannot displace the date India Law Library Docid # 2455090
(252) SHRI KRISHAN BALDEV BANSAL Vs. BALBIR SINGH TYAGI AND ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of adjudication — Narrowing of claims by party consent — Arbitrator confined award to a single claim concerning reimbursement of bank liability discharged by appellant, leaving other pleaded reliefs unadjudicated — District Judge set aside award holding arbitrator failed to adjudicate all reliefs — Held, unsustainable — Contemporaneous order-sheet established that parties and counsel submitted the award be passed only on the spe India Law Library Docid # 2455091
(253) RACHNA MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER Vs. JASBIR KAUR AND ORS.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 21(1) Proviso and Article 59 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 — Addition of defendants — Deemed date of institution — Plaintiffs sought to amend plaint to implead subsequent purchasers and challenge successive sale deeds executed behind their back — Defendants opposed amendment citing three-year limitation period under Article 59 — Held, Court is empowered under the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act to direct tha India Law Library Docid # 2455093
(254) ASHOK KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) AND ANOTHER Vs. NIRMALA DEVI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Transfer of Property — Landlord and Tenant — Derivative Title — Suit for possession and arrears of rent — Erstwhile owner sold the suit property and was inducted as a tenant under a contemporaneous rent agreement — Landlady subsequently sold the property to the plaintiff — Tenant contended that no fresh rent agreement was executed with the plaintiff — Held, upon acquisition of the property through a registered sale deed, the plaintiff became the landlord by operation of law — Execution of a sepa India Law Library Docid # 2455099
(255) ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of non-compoundable offences on settlement — High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where parties have arrived at an amicable compromise — Inherent powers are recognized to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice — While serious and heinous offences involving mental India Law Library Docid # 2455105
(256) USHA GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. YOGENDRA PAL SINGH AND ANR (RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LTD)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Standard of proof — Claim for compensation — Standard of proof applicable in motor accident claim petitions is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner is not required — Claimants are only required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability — Burden stands discharged if evidence renders one version more probable th India Law Library Docid # 2455108
(257) VIJAY YADAV @ MONU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Excise Act — Section 34(2) — Regular bail — Illicit liquor seizure — Applicant apprehended with 5.4 bulk liters of country-made liquor — Applicant sought bail on ground of completed investigation, charge-sheet filing, and custody period — Prosecution opposed citing 10 criminal antecedents, including 7 under Excise Act — Held, existence of multiple pending criminal antecedents of identical nature underscores a persistent pattern of offending India Law Library Docid # 2455113
(258) ABHISHEK MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(1) and 3(5) — Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings — Matrimonial discord — Parties amicably resolved their disputes through mediation before High Court Mediation Centre — Settlement terms included payment of permanent alimony and return of jewelry — Complainant-wife recorded statement expressing no objection to quashing of case — Parties also initiated mutual divorce India Law Library Docid # 2455118
(259) KALINDRI BAI NIRMALKAR AND OTHERS Vs. RAJU CHANDRAVASHI AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Enhancement of compensation — Assessment of deceased's income — Deceased died in a motor accident on 13.11.2020 while working as a driver with a cargo company — Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- — Salary statements and witness testimony established that the basic salary was Rs. 13,000/- per month, whereas additional distance-based travel incentives were meant for personal expenses and excluded from salary — Held, the income assessed by the India Law Library Docid # 2455121
(260) SUB AREA MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LIMITED (SECL) AND ANOTHER Vs. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope and ambit of review jurisdiction — Error apparent on the face of the record — Review is maintainable only if there is a patent mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record — An error that is not self-evident and requires detection through a process of reasoning does not justify review — Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order — Rehearing of a matter or substitution of a view is impermissible, and parties cannot re-agit India Law Library Docid # 2455124