(201) VELMURUGAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392 read with Section 397 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Robbery — Proof of recovery — Fact discovered — Complainant initially stated in the complaint that her gold chain went missing, but improved her testimony at trial alleging the accused snatched it while she was unconscious. Prosecution also submitted conflicting property descriptions between the recovery mahazar and Form 91. Furthermore, the recovery from the accused's goldsmith shop was not shown to India Law Library Docid # 2454568
(202) WARIS KHAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Scope of supervisory jurisdiction — Grounds of interference — High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the court below — Power under Article 227 is discretionary and exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their authority, or in cases of patent perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or absence of jurisdiction — District Judge did not co India Law Library Docid # 2454549
(203) STATE OF M.P. Vs. BHERA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 50 — Suo moto revisional jurisdiction — Maintainability against unappealed orders — Orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector setting aside summary deletion of respondents' names from revenue records attained finality as State preferred no appeal or revision — Revisional authority initiated suo moto revisional proceedings based on an administrative complaint and reversed those orders — Held, suo moto revision cannot be exerc India Law Library Docid # 2454551
(204) PREETIBALA Vs. KANTABAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 34 and 35 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Bar on Civil Court to grant injunction — Plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in the mortgaged suit property and sought to restrain recovery proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act — Held, while a suit for declaration of title may be maintainable before a civil court, the second part of Section 34 explicitly de India Law Library Docid # 2454552
(205) BABULAL AND OTHERS Vs. AMRUTA BAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45 — Additional evidence in appeal — Direction for DNA test — Privacy of third party — Petitioners sought a DNA test of respondent No. 1 and a non-party to dispute paternity, despite trial Court having previously rejected similar applications which went unchallenged — Held, a DNA test involving a third party cannot be ordered without consent, having regard to privacy rights — Further, petitioners failed to establi India Law Library Docid # 2454553
(206) M/S MMB HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 — Section 305 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 — Road Widening — Removal of projections — Petitioner challenged notice to remove front portion of sanctioned building for road widening, contending compulsory acquisition requires proceedings under 2013 Act — Held, Section 305 is a wholesome special provision empowering Corporation to remove parts of buildings projecting beyond regular street line determined f India Law Library Docid # 2454556
(207) BASANT KUMAR RAWAT Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 — Section 305 — Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 — Sections 17 and 49 — Removal of building projection for road widening — Deemed automatic vesting — Challenge to notice directing removal of shop portion obstructing road widening under Indore Development Plan — Held, a development plan once finalized is binding upon local authorities and owners alike — Under Section 305 of the 1956 Act, any structure projecting beyond the regul India Law Library Docid # 2454557
(208) INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH OIC MR PRATUL SINHA Vs. CORE LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD THRU DIRECTOR RAJENDRA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-10-2026 Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 — Sections 50, 51 and 53 — Town Development Scheme — Exclusion of land — Prior layout sanction — Validity — Respondents obtained sanctioned layout/development permissions prior to publication of declaration of intention to frame Scheme Nos. 169-A and 169-B under Section 50(2) — Section 53 freezes land use upon declaration but explicitly saves development authorized prior to such publication — Lands covered by valid pre-existing layout sancti India Law Library Docid # 2454558
(209) ANKIT YADU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 — Sections 58(5) and 58(6) — Inter-corporation transfer — Surplus employee transferred upon own request — Petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II employee, was found surplus at Charoda and submitted a representation seeking transfer — Transfer to Rajnandgaon was ordered considering his request against vacant posts — Precedent holding inter-corporation transfer permissible only on deputation distinguished — An employee has no vested right to claim posting at India Law Library Docid # 2454599
(210) P. SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 — Rule 26(9) and Proviso to Rule 46(1) — Mining lease — Lapsing and revival — Non-operation due to insurgency — Petitioner sought review of rejection of revival application contending mining operations ceased due to pervasive Naxalite threats — Authority rejected application on ground that petitioner failed to intimate stoppage between 2005 and 2020 — Held, authority erred in ignoring mitigating circumstances, threat perception, and police reports deta India Law Library Docid # 2454605
(211) PURNA CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. TAHASILDAR, GHATAGAON AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Maintainability of writ petition — Alternative statutory remedy — Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, Rules 41 and 42 — Availability of statutory appeal or revision is not an absolute bar to exercising writ jurisdiction when a pure question of law is raised. The issue whether a registered sale certificate can be ignored by mutation authorities merely due to pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a pure question of India Law Library Docid # 2454611
(212) SABITA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — General principles — Discretionary power to condone delay is conditioned upon the existence of "sufficient cause" — Concepts of "liberal approach" or "advancement of substantial justice" cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory law of limitation or revive stale, dead claims where negligence and inaction exist — Merits of the main case cannot be considered while adjudicating an application for condonation of delay — Courts possess no equi India Law Library Docid # 2454614
(213) SAI SONALI NANDA Vs. SAMBIT MISHRA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Dissolution of marriage — Mental cruelty — Assessment of cumulative conduct — Marriage deteriorated within months of solemnisation, followed by prolonged continuous separation, complete cessation of conjugal relations and communication, repeated failed reconciliation attempts, and serious unsubstantiated allegations — Mental cruelty is an inference drawn from the totality of circumstances rather than isolated incidents — Where sustained discord and India Law Library Docid # 2454618
(214) UMESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27(a) — Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Regular bail — Commercial quantity — Search and seizure of 388 Kgs of Ganja from a container truck intercepted by police — Applicant claimed false implication, clean antecedents, and protracted custody — Held, commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the applicant's possession for which no satisfactory explanation was offered — Plea of fals India Law Library Docid # 2454576
(215) DR. BHUMIKA DEWANGAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Service Law — Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 — Rule 44 — Retrospective operation of beneficial relaxation — Serving government doctors granted 24 months study leave followed by extraordinary leave under existing rules — Subsequent Government order dated 03.03.2025 relaxed Rule 44 enhancing study leave ceiling up to 36 months — Held, a subsequent beneficial provision or relaxation is presumed to operate prospectively unless clear legislative intent dictates otherwise — Concluded India Law Library Docid # 2454579
(216) DR. BHUMIKA DEWANGAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 — Rule 44 — Enhancement of study leave ceiling — Retrospective application — Government order dated 03.03.2025 relaxed Rule 44, enhancing maximum study leave from 24 months to 36 months for doctors pursuing postgraduate courses — Petitioners had already been sanctioned and availed 24 months leave prior to the order — Held, legislation or executive orders are presumed prospective unless a contrary intention appears expressly or by necessary implicat India Law Library Docid # 2454580
(217) SMT. KALAVATI DEVI W/O HEMLAL MEHTA Vs. HEMLAL MEHTA S/O LATE RAMKRISHUN MEHTA[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Claim for compensation — Deceased driving father's motorcycle — Stepping into shoes of owner — Deceased was driving a motorcycle owned by his father when the accident occurred without involvement of any other vehicle — Deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and could not be treated as a third party — Legal representatives cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. India Law Library Docid # 2454581
(218) SANDIP S. THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR) — Regulations 10, 10.10.2(3)(vi), 2.4 and 3.4.1 — Interpretation of non-obstante clause — Scope of City-Specific Regulations — Petitioner contended that Regulation 10.10.2 overrides general regulations, precluding any relaxation — Held, a non-obstante clause does not exclude general provisions of UDCPR unless there is an irreconcilable conflict — General regulations in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 continue to apply to city-specific deve India Law Library Docid # 2454652
(219) SANDIP S. THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR) — Regulations 10, 10.10.2(3)(vi), and 2.4 — Statutory Interpretation — Non-obstante clause — Scope and effect — Petitioner contended that Regulation 10.10.2 overrides general regulations, precluding relaxation under Regulation 2.4 — Held, non-obstante clause in Chapter 10 cannot be construed to exclude the application of general provisions in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of UDCPR — Regulations must be read harmoniously, with non-obstant India Law Library Docid # 2454653
(220) RANI PRATAP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-10-2026 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 — Illegal immigrant as victim — Dignity and protection against exploitation — Contention that victim was an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant and could not be believed to convict an Indian citizen rejected — Criminal law focuses on prosecuting perpetrators of commercial sexual exploitation, not shaming victims — An immigration label cannot become a licence for indignity — Status as an illegal immigrant does not extinguish a human being' India Law Library Docid # 2454654