(121) DHARMANA DHARMA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Dismissal of suit as "not pressed" — Effect on title — Private respondent filed a suit against petitioner for declaration of title, which was dismissed as not pressed without determination on merits — Petitioner claimed title was confirmed, obviating the need to approach a civil court — Held, dismissal of a suit as not pressed without deciding merits does not adjudicate rights or confer title upon the defendant — Petitioner cannot claim declaration or perfectio India Law Library Docid # 2454960
(122) SEELAM SURYA CHANDRA SEKHAR AZAD Vs. THE STATE OF AP AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 — Section 10(a) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(2) and Section 29 — Duration of ad-interim attachment — Automatic statutory lapse — Special Court passed ad-interim attachment of properties in a disproportionate assets case — Neither was cognizance taken within one year nor was any extension application filed by the prosecution — Held, under Section 10(a) of the Ordinance, an ad-interim attachment remains in force for on India Law Library Docid # 2454961
(123) KODAVATIKANTI CHANDRA SEKHAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Police Powers — Interference in civil disputes — Police authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate, meddle with, or determine civil rights, title, or possession inter se parties, especially when matters are sub judice before competent Civil Courts — Function of resolving civil disputes is exclusively entrusted to the judiciary — Police cannot act as adjudicators, summon individuals to police stations, or coerce settlements in property disputes — Role India Law Library Docid # 2454962
(124) S ISMAIL ALIAS A ISMAIL Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 242(2) and 242(3) — Power to receive additional evidence during trial — Production of documents not filed along with charge sheet — Prosecution sought to introduce three relevant documents inadvertently misplaced in another case record — Accused opposed the application on grounds of delay and attempting to fill prosecution lacunae — Held, Section 242 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial court to issue summons for documents and take evidence produced in suppor India Law Library Docid # 2454963
(125) THE APSRTC Vs. PADMAVATHI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Negligence and Liability — Collison between APSRTC bus and TATA Sumo resulting in fatal injuries to passenger — Eyewitness testimony of PW2 coupled with FIR and charge sheet attributed sole negligence to the APSRTC bus driver — APSRTC failed to examine its driver, which was held fatal to its defence — Owner and insurer of the other vehicle rightly exonerated — APSRTC held vicariously liable to pay compensation for rash and negligent driving of its employe India Law Library Docid # 2454964
(126) GOPALAM SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS Vs. V SUBBAYAMMA AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 168 — Rash and negligent driving — Non-examination of offending vehicle's driver — Eyewitness testimony established that the offending lorry dashed against the deceased's motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving — Said testimony was corroborated by the FIR and Charge Sheet, with no rebuttal evidence adduced by the insurer — Non-examination of the lorry driver held fatal to the respondents' case — Finding affirmed that the driver was solely responsi India Law Library Docid # 2454965
(127) S. KRISHNAIAH Vs. S S LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 168 — Negligence — Proof of rash and negligent driving — Non-examination of driver of offending vehicle — Petitioner sustained severe injuries when an offending car dashed against his two-wheeler — FIR and charge-sheet were registered against the car driver — Respondents failed to examine the driver of the car — Held, the driver was the best person to speak about the accident and his non-examination is fatal to the case of the respondents — In the abse India Law Library Docid # 2454966
(128) 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
(129) 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
(130) 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
(131) 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
(132) 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
(133) 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
(134) 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
(135) 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
(136) 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
(137) 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
(138) 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
(139) 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
(140) 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