(1) COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY AND ANOTHER Vs. DABUR INDIA LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Application seeking to amend plaint to challenge subsequent advertisements by Defendant is rejected where original plaint already contained pleadings concerning the issue underlying the new advertisements — Suit for permanent injunction against disparagement of Plaintiffs' product/ingredient India Law Library Docid # 2438040
(2) PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against conviction — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376 (Rape), 342 (Wrongful Confinement), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) — Acquittal on appeal — Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt — Allegation of continuous illegal confinement and repeated rape (November 2013 to January 2014) — Photographic India Law Library Docid # 2438041
(3) PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act) — Evidence of Child Victims — Although minor inconsistencies are expected due to the tender age of victims, contradictions concerning the essential details of the sexual assault, coupled with contradictory medical findings, render the evidence unsafe for sustaining a conviction. India Law Library Docid # 2438035
(4) ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED Vs. E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Patents Act, 1970 — Section 48 — Rights of Patentees — Legal Framework — While intellectual property rights require protection, Section 48 only grants the exclusive right to prevent third parties from dealing with "that product" which is the subject matter of the patent claim; this protection must be balanced against the public interest, especially concerning life-saving medicines, and requires a clear showing of India Law Library Docid # 2438036
(5) KALYAN DASS THROUGH LR'S Vs. PRAVEEN CHAWLA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 — Section 29 — Applicability — The protection under Section 29 against ejectment applies to persons in lawful possession of property forming part of the compensation pool, such as tenants or allottees under the Evacuee Property Act — The provision is inapplicable where the suit property was not an evacuee property but Government-built property for rehabilitation, and the defendant/appellant claimed status as a licensee under the India Law Library Docid # 2438037
(6) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. M/S RAM NIWAS GOEL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 — Appeal against Commercial Court Judgment — Challenge to a decree for recovery, declaration (of certain orders as null and void), and permanent injunction — Admitted facts included the award of work for construction of a school, delays due to COVID-19 lockdown, and site hindrances (existence of trees) — Builder's claim for recovery India Law Library Docid # 2438038
(7) MR GAUTAM MONDAL THROUGH HIS WIFE MRS ASHIMA MUKHERJEE MONDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 12-01-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction and Forum Conveniens — Even if a part of the cause of action arises within a High Court’s territorial jurisdiction (e.g., where the impugned order was passed), the Court retains the discretion to refuse to exercise jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens if another forum is more appropriate and India Law Library Docid # 2438039
(8) SURINDER MOHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Service Law — Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Educational Qualifications — Intelligence Assistant (Constable) and Intelligence Officer (Sub-Inspector) in Punjab Police Intelligence Wing — Challenge to rejection of candidature based on non-fulfilment of prescribed educational qualifications — Prescribed qualification requires a graduate with an 'O' Level Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT or equivalent institution India Law Library Docid # 2437936
(9) KRISHMA KUMRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC, 1973) — Regular Bail — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 21, 22, 29 — Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases — Factors for granting bail include prolonged incarceration (over 1 year, 3 months, 22 days), slow pace of trial (no prosecution witness examined yet), and the right India Law Library Docid # 2437937
(10) JAWAHAR SAW MILLS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. GANESH SAW MILL AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 15(4) — Transfer of suits from Civil Court to Commercial Court (Section 15(2)) — Applicability of Section 15(4) and Proviso to timelines — Section 15(2) and 15(4) apply only to suits pending on the date of establishment of the Commercial Court — Suits filed before a Civil Court subsequent to the establishment of the Commercial Court and later transferred to it are India Law Library Docid # 2437952
(11) VARINDERJEET SINGH (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS VARINDER SINGH) Vs. JOGINDER PAL NARULA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 7 — Application to set aside ex parte proceeding — Scope and Nature of Relief — The relief under Order 9 Rule 7 is discretionary and equitable — The applicant must establish 'good cause' for absence on the date proceeded ex parte — The provision does not confer an unfettered or vested right India Law Library Docid # 2437931
(12) RICHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Service Law — Bifurcation of Cadre — Withdrawal/Change of Option — Staff Nurse posted at Regional Hospital Una — Decision to bifurcate Nursing Staff Cadre into Medical Education Department and Health and Family Welfare Department — Petitioner initially opted for Medical Education Department but sought withdrawal/change of option immediately thereafter citing compelling personal circumstances: son suffering from mild India Law Library Docid # 2438005
(13) RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 — Section 94 — Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 — Rule 37 and Appendix ‘A’, Rule 4(2) — Redetermination/Carving out of zones for election of Managing Committee — Challenge to Registrar’s order re-determining zones based on serial number of members instead of geographical contiguity — Rule 4(2), Appendix ‘A’ mandates zone constitution based on India Law Library Docid # 2438006
(14) DIKKEN KUMAR THAKUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 243E — Duration of Panchayats — Mandate to hold elections before expiry of five-year term — Elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) must be completed before the expiry of their five-year duration — Continuing PRIs beyond the mandated term is unconstitutional and void ab initio — The constitutional requirement is paramount, and exceptions like natural calamities should be India Law Library Docid # 2438007
(15) DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PERIYASAMY AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Motor Accident Claims — Negligence — Rear-end collision — Petitioners (father and son on motorcycle) alleged rash and negligent riding by Respondent 1 (rider of offending motorcycle) resulting in rear-end collision; Respondent 2 (Insurer) alleged contributory negligence due to abrupt right turn without indicators and failure to wear helmet — Factual matrix and judicial proceedings (FIR, Final Report, Criminal Judgment where Respondent 1 admitted guilt) su India Law Library Docid # 2438070
(16) M.M. BABU Vs. YOUNG MEN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Execution Proceedings — Obstruction to Execution (Order XXI, Rules 97 and 99) — Maintainability of application under Rule 99 after adjudication under Rule 97 — A person who actively contested and lost an application for removal of obstruction filed by the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, where their independent rights were adjudicated, cannot subsequently file a India Law Library Docid # 2438071
(17) SRINIVASA DOSS Vs. P. KALAIDASAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 (Question to be determined by the Court executing decree) — Order XX Rule 4(2) (Judgments of other Courts) — Executability of Decree — Ground for Attack — A judgment-debtor cannot challenge the executability of a decree under Section 47 CPC solely on the ground that the judgment does not conform to the requirements of Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC (i.e., lacking a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions, and reasons). (Paras 1, 3, India Law Library Docid # 2438072
(18) SATCHITHANANDUM (DIED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY (DIED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 — Section 3(4)(b) — Eviction of tenant — Arrears of rent — Revenue Court's discretion to grant time for deposit — The Act's objective is to protect cultivating tenants from eviction; Section 3(4)(b) mandates that when an eviction application is filed based on rent default, the Revenue Court must afford the cultivating tenant a reasonable opportunity (time) to deposit the arrears of rent, inclusive of costs, before passing an eviction order — Fa India Law Library Docid # 2438073
(19) PADASAIB (DIED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. SARASWATHI (DIED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 105 and 106 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to execution proceedings — The settled legal position is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to an application filed under Order 21 Rule 106(3) of CPC for restoration of an application dismissed for default under Order 21 Rule 105(2) of CPC. India Law Library Docid # 2438074
(20) A.R. SHRIDHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 — Judicial Review — Scope and Limitations — Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and is strictly confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 — Power of review cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by statute — Review is for the correction of a mistake, not to substitute a view or to allow a rehearing of the matter on merits — It constitutes an exception to the finality of judicial decisions and is invoked only to pre India Law Library Docid # 2438075