(61) THANGARAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 07-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973 (as substituted by BNSS, 2023) — Section 528 [Quashing of Proceedings] — Charges relating to illegal possession of banned tobacco products — Defective Investigation — Requirement of Forensic Report — Where the culpability of the accused depends on the nature of seized material (banned tobacco products), the material objects seized must be sent for forensic examination, and India Law Library Docid # 2438092
(62) M/S. HERAEUS ELECTRO-NITE INTERNATIONAL N.V., BELGIUM AND ANOTHER Vs. MR. G.S. NARAYAN AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Jurisdiction clause in agreement — Parties can agree to exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts — Suit can be rejected if it violates such clause — However, if a necessary party not bound by the clause is involved, the suit may proceed. India Law Library Docid # 2438141
(63) GOURANGA CHANDRA MOHANTY AND OTHERS Vs. SARASWATI MOHAPATRA (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 07-01-2026 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 57 — Probate of Wills — Properties in Gadajat areas like Keonjhar district are exempted from the requirement of probate for Wills — Civil court can adjudicate the validity of an un-probated Will when probate provisions are not attracted. India Law Library Docid # 2438142
(64) THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MD. TAHIR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 07-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/34 — Murder and Section 201/34 — Causing disappearance of evidence of offence — Circumstantial evidence — Court can convict based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete unbroken chain irresistibly pointing to guilt. India Law Library Docid # 2438188
(65) CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SHRI SHANKAR DAS BAIRAGI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Limitation for claiming gratuity — The Act of 1972 does not prescribe any period of limitation for claiming gratuity — Gratuity is payable, as per Section 7(3), within 30 days from the date it becomes payable (which is the date of exit from employment, Section 4(1)) — Rules framed under the Act, which suggest a limitation period (such as Rule 7(2) of the Central Rules or corresponding M.P. Rules), India Law Library Docid # 2437895
(66) ATHLETICS SANGH MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Read with Section 2(e) ("Court") — Meaning of "Court" — Defined as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (District Judge) — Application to set aside an arbitral award must ordinarily be filed before this Court unless transferred to a Commercial Court as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 India Law Library Docid # 2437896
(67) ATUL KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS Vs. RAMSAKHI DEVI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law (Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Section 26) — Where land subject of a title declaration suit has vested in Central Government following declaration of acquisition under Section 10 of the 1957 Act prior to filing of suit, the suit is barred by Section 26 of the 1957 Act as the only remaining question is India Law Library Docid # 2437897
(68) KAILASH PATHAK Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Service Law — Suspension Pending Enquiry — Nature of Suspension — Suspension is not a punishment but an interim administrative measure intended to facilitate a free, fair, and unbiased departmental enquiry, particularly essential in cases of grave allegations (such as forgery of public documents, misappropriation of funds, and abuse of public office) to prevent tampering with records, influencing witnesses, India Law Library Docid # 2437898
(69) ANCHAL AGRAWAL Vs. ARVIND AGRAWAL[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Family Court — Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting aside ex parte decree — Definition of "Hearing of the Suit"— Where the case was fixed for reconciliation/filing of written statement, and subsequently returned from Lok Adalat, the date fixed for regular court proceedings (after reference to Lok Adalat) was not a date fixed for "hearing of the suit" under India Law Library Docid # 2437909
(70) KANTA SETHI AND ANOTHER Vs. HANS RAJ AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 9, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 — Suit for Partition — Non-joinder of Necessary Parties — Intestate Succession — In a partition suit based on intestate succession, all legal heirs must be impleaded as co-sharers or necessary parties to ascertain the exact share of the plaintiff — Failure to implead five out of six siblings (daughters) of the deceased renders the suit defective for India Law Library Docid # 2437880
(71) SHAHEEN MALIK AND ANOTHER Vs. MOHD. SARFARAZ[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Enhancement of Quantum — Wives and Children — Object of Section 125 is to provide swift remedy against destitution and neglect and secure "dignified sustenance"— Sustenance is not bare survival; it must secure a standard of living consistent with dignity, considering the status the wife would have enjoyed in matrimonial home — Quantum must bear a rational nexus to the needs of the claimants and the means/earning India Law Library Docid # 2437881
(72) RAM KUBER Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2) and 506(II) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 5(1) punishable under Section 6 — Conviction for repeated rape of a child (13 years old) — Age of Prosecutrix — School records showing Date of Birth as 23.10.2005, making the child 13 years old at the time of the incident (July 2018) — Even if defense assertion of 17 years old were accepted (which was unsupported by evidence), the victim was still a child under 18 years, India Law Library Docid # 2437882
(73) CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK (NOW KNOWN AS M/S CTBC BANK CO. LTD.) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 409 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque) — Complaint filed against Bank and its officers alleging criminal breach of trust (S. 409 IPC) by misappropriating an undated 'security cheque' given as assurance for a commercial loan, and presenting it for encashment upon default — Allegation made after India Law Library Docid # 2437883
(74) NEELAM JOSHI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Custody of Minor Children — Applicability and Scope — Writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative process for securing liberty and extends to restoring custody of a minor to their legal guardian when wrongfully deprived — Detention of a minor by a person not entitled to legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention — The writ is an extraordinary India Law Library Docid # 2437884
(75) ANURADHA @ CHIKU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) — Section 21(4) — Bail — Rigour of Twin Conditions — The statutory provision imposes two stringent conditions for granting bail: the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence, and that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail — This threshold is qualitatively different and more exacting than discretion under the general law — Satisfaction of the India Law Library Docid # 2437885
(76) SHYOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Revision Petition — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 279 (Rash driving), 337 (Causing hurt by act endangering life), and 304-A (Causing death by negligence) — Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced — Petitioner convicted and sentenced by trial court (affirmed by appellate court) for offenses under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC — Petitioner did India Law Library Docid # 2437941
(77) SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 read with Section 401 — Scope — Petitioner convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) — Challenge limited to quantum of sentence, not conviction — High Court maintaining the finding of guilt and conviction affirmed by lower courts, noting no interference required on merits. India Law Library Docid # 2437942
(78) M/S. M D ROAD LINES PVT. LTD. Vs. FIROZ KHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 2(c) — Landlord-Tenant Relationship — Eviction Petition — Requirement for Landlord Status — A person must stand on his own evidence (Plaintiff's strength) — The definition of 'landlord' under the Act emphasizes receiving or entitlement to receive rent, making ownership of the premises not essential — Where the tenant categorically admits the landlord-tenant relationship and payment of India Law Library Docid # 2437943
(79) RAM NARAYAN MEENA Vs. SHRI NIRANJAN ARYA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 06-01-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Power to Punish for Contempt — Standard of Proof — Exercise of power to punish for contempt must be reserved for cases involving clear violation of the court’s order — Since contempt proceedings and subsequent punishment are serious consequences, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of "wilful disobedience" is established — The petitioner alleging breach must establish India Law Library Docid # 2437944
(80) KHARTARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 06-01-2026 Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 — Rules 8, 10, 15 — Parole — Conditions for Release — Indigent Prisoner — Constitutional Mandates (Articles 14 and 21) — Insistence on furnishing sureties for release on sanctioned parole, where a prisoner's indigence and inability to furnish sureties are established and undisputed, amounts to constructive denial of parole and renders the concession illusory; this insistence is legally unsustainable, constitutionally impermissible, and morally India Law Library Docid # 2437948