(21) 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
(22) 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
(23) 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
(24) 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
(25) 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
(26) 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
(27) 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
(28) 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
(29) K. SHANMUGAVEL MUDALIAR AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, (A) ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act — Hereditary Trusteeship — Appointment of Fit Person/Executive Officer — Challenge to appointment — Where a High Court, in an earlier interim order (dated 25.05.2024), directed the respondents (HR & CE Department) to allow the application of legal heirs for appointment as hereditary trustees and permit the Fit Person to continue only until such order, the HR & CE India Law Library Docid # 2438076
(30) SHANMUGHA ARTS, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH ACADEMY (SASTRA) DEEMED UNIVERSITY, THIRUMALAISAMUDRAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Land Encroachment — Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 — Encroachment on Government land — Public Purpose — Assignment of encroached land — Assignment of encroached land cannot be claimed as an absolute right by encroachers — Acceptance of alternate land proposal is solely at the Government's discretion — Where the land is earmarked for a defined public purpose (Prison/Jail), rejection of the request India Law Library Docid # 2438077
(31) BISWAJIT RATH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Court Hierarchy and Judicial Discipline — Binding Precedent — A coordinate bench of equal strength must follow a previous decision of another coordinate bench. If a coordinate bench disagrees with the legal principles laid down by an earlier coordinate bench, the only course of action is to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. Any attempt to take a contrary view is an error and undermines India Law Library Docid # 2438136
(32) GURUBARI BISWAL AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. SUDHAKAR MARKETING AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A — Structured formula for compensation — Applicability — Deceased's income exceeding Rs. 40,000 per annum — Maintainability of claim application — Tribunal's finding that fooding allowance is part of wages and inflates income beyond limit reversed. India Law Library Docid # 2438137
(33) PARSURAM TANDI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(f)(i) — Rape of minor — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Conviction — Appellants convicted for offences under Section 376(2)(f)(i) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act — Challenged the impugned order of conviction and sentence — FIR lodged by mother of victim — Victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. supported India Law Library Docid # 2438138
(34) PRADEEP MOHANTY @ BABAJI MOHANTY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(C) — Offence related to ganja — Possession of contraband — Appellants were occupants of the offending vehicle from which contraband was seized — Trial court considered all issues raised regarding search, seizure, and discrepancies in witness statements — Court found no illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial India Law Library Docid # 2438139
(35) RANJITA SAHOO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(i), 376D, 323/34 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v) — Appeal against conviction — Allegations of rape and kidnapping — Crucial evidence, namely medical reports from hospitals where the victim was treated, were India Law Library Docid # 2438140
(36) MICHAEL FRANCIS AND OTHERS Vs. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Disciplinary Proceedings – Procedural Irregularities – Memo of charge must include list of documents and witnesses. India Law Library Docid # 2438187
(37) SANOOP V.V., Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 09-01-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 363 — Bar to interference by Courts in disputes arising out of treaties and agreements — Applicability — Wrangling over "Malikhana" allowance, a payment arising from a covenant between the East India Company and Zamorin Raja, falls under Article 363, as it concerns disputes from pre India Law Library Docid # 2438261
(38) DEEPAK BHANDARI AND OTHERS Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 08-01-2026 Companies Act, 1956 — Winding Up — Claims of Creditor/Shareholder — Interest Rate on Deposits — Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, Rules 156 and 179 — Creditors challenged Official Liquidator's rejection of claim for 12% annual interest, awarded only 1.5% — Official Liquidator relied on Board Resolution (dated 28.04.1972 for accounting period 01.01.1971 to 31.12.1971) which fixed interest at 1.5% per annum — Rules 156 India Law Library Docid # 2437894
(39) TEJ NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 08-01-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) — Offence of illegal gratification/criminal misconduct — Mandatory requirement of proof of 'demand' — To establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance/obtainment of illegal gratification by the public servant as a fact in issue (sine qua non) — Mere possession and recovery of India Law Library Docid # 2437879
(40) RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-01-2026 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Natural Justice — Disagreement with Inquiry Officer's Report — Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), Rule 16.24 — Where the Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagrees with the Inquiry Officer's report exonerating the delinquent employee, supplying the inquiry report along with the disagreement note-cum-show cause notice and affording an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing constitutes due compliance with principles of natural just India Law Library Docid # 2437935