(701) STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. BISHAL SAHA[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 36A — Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court — Charge-sheet filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of Special Court — Effect — Held, once a Special Court is constituted for an area, it alone has exclusive jurisdiction, India Law Library Docid # 2447186
(702) All NEHU WORKERS’ UNION (ANWU) Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU) AND OTHER[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Regularization of casual/temporary workers — Long years of continuous service (10 to 30 years) without appointment against sanctioned posts or through regular selection process — Availability of vacant sanctioned posts — Held, a blanket denial of consideration for regularization would be unjustified where members of petitioner-Union have rendered long, continuous service and India Law Library Docid # 2447187
(703) STATE OF KERALA Vs. KERALA REVENUE DEPARTMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION KRDSA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction over Administrative Tribunal — Scope — Held, power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum, is not appellate in nature, and can be exercised only where the order of the Tribunal is passed in grave dereliction of duty, in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or reflects India Law Library Docid # 2447188
(704) M.MANUEL, MALABAR FASHION JEWELLERY Vs. MALABAR GOLD PRIVATE LTD.[KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 28(3) — Infringement action between two registered proprietors — Registrations in different classes — Held, S. 28(3) bars an infringement action between two registered proprietors only where both the marks are identical/nearly resembling AND the registrations relate to the same goods or services — Where rival registrations fall in different classes (goods India Law Library Docid # 2447189
(705) PHOENIX MARKETING SOLUTION Vs. THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER 2 VELLORE (RURAL)[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 74; Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Assessment Order — Petitioner challenged assessment orders and sought quashing of the same, restoration of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and permission to file an appeal without pre-deposit — Petitioner availed ITC in relation to supplies from M/s — Rathod Enterprise. India Law Library Docid # 2447405
(706) SECRETARY, FOREST AND OTHERS Vs. OM KAILASH TYAGI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Recovery from retired employee — Wrongful pay fixation — Class III/Group-C employee — No misrepresentation or fraud by employee — Respondent, a Statistical Officer (Group-C), had his pay scale re-fixed and Rs. 13,63,630/- recovered from gratuity post-retirement, without any finding that he had misrepresented facts or committed fraud India Law Library Docid # 2447954
(707) GOPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Pay Parity — Non-Consideration of Similarly Situated Persons — Petitioner's claim to pay parity for basic pay under the CCS (Pension) Rules rejected solely by reference to one named comparator, while several other similarly situated persons named in his representation were left unaddressed. Held, where a representation names multiple similarly situated persons who have already been granted the claimed benefit, the authority is obliged to consider the claim qua each of them and cann India Law Library Docid # 2448092
(708) DEVENDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Compassionate Appointment — Acceptance of Lower Post — Exhaustion of Right — Petitioner, recommended for a Class-III post but appointed and having voluntarily joined a Class-IV post due to non-availability of vacancy, sought subsequent conversion to the originally recommended Class-III post. Held, once an applicant exercises the option to accept and join a lower post under compassionate appointment, the right to compassionate appointment stands exhausted, and no vested right survives to claim co India Law Library Docid # 2448093
(709) KAVITHA AND OTHERS Vs. K NAGARAJU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151 and Order 18 Rule 17 — Reopening of Evidence/Recalling Witnesses — Scope — The inherent power under S. 151, CPC and the power to recall witnesses under O. 18 R. 17 cannot be routinely invoked, are not intended to fill lacunae in evidence already recorded, and are to be exercised sparingly, only where no other provision covers the situation and where bona fides of the applicant are not in doubt — Recall of witnesses cross-examined at length by a pred India Law Library Docid # 2448774
(710) SHRI DHANPAT RAI GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI KASHMIRI LAL GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED) REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope of interference by First Appellate Court with findings of fact recorded by Trial Court — Held, where the Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence and recorded cogent, reasoned findings based on documents and admissions on record, the First Appellate Court cannot reverse such findings without independently examining the evidence in its entirety, particularly where the view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible India Law Library Docid # 2447168
(711) RAM ASHRYA UPADHYAY Vs. VIJAY NARAIN UPADHYAY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened in a Second Appeal in the garb of substantial questions of law; a challenge confined to factual findings, without raising any substantial question of law, is not maintainable India Law Library Docid # 2447169
(712) STATE AND OTHER Vs. LALIT KUMAR AND OTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) — Cancellation/setting aside of order granting bail — Scope of interference — A superior court should not normally interfere with an order granting bail, but where the Trial Court has missed extremely important factors while granting bail in an offence of grave nature, the High Court would be justified in setting aside such an order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction India Law Library Docid # 2447170
(713) MR. A.R. ABDUL RAZAK Vs. M/S. ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Limited scope of judicial interference — Court under Section 34 does not sit in appeal over an arbitral award and cannot reappreciate evidence; "patent illegality" must go to the root of the matter and excludes mere erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence — scope under Section 37 is narrower still, confined to examining whether India Law Library Docid # 2447172
(714) ASHIM SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial evidence — Standard of proof — Held, in a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, forming a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excluding every other hypothesis; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, and there is a legal as well as grammatical India Law Library Docid # 2447173
(715) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SARASWATI[KERALA HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 29(2) — Customary mode of dissolution of marriage — Family pension to divorced daughter — Held, dissolution of marriage by a registered customary agreement (Annexure A3, 1974) executed in accordance with the practice prevailing among members of the Thiyya community of North Malabar, governed by Marumakkattayam law and having statutory backing India Law Library Docid # 2447174
(716) LODHIYA TUDU AND OTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 430(1) — Suspension of sentence post-conviction — Distinction from pre-trial bail — Held, at post-conviction stage when suspension of sentence is sought, there is a finding of guilt and presumption of innocence does not arise; strong and compelling reasons are required (not merely custody duration), and the court considers only prima facie merits of the India Law Library Docid # 2447175
(717) KRIT YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Section 82 — Powers of State Commissioner — Limited to matters enumerated; no power to adjudicate on title — Held, though State Commissioner has powers of a Civil Court for purposes of investigation, inquiry and proceedings under Sections 195 and Chapter XXVI CrPC, such powers are strictly limited to matters specified in Section 82 and do not extend to India Law Library Docid # 2447176
(718) IN REFERENCE OF : STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KALYAN RAIKWAR[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 29-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 318 — Reference by trial court on ground accused (deaf and dumb) unable to understand proceedings — Scope and duty of trial court before making reference — Held, it is the duty of trial court to make an inquiry whether the accused, despite all endeavours, cannot be made to understand the proceedings — If accused, though deaf and India Law Library Docid # 2447181
(719) GULAB CHAND IVNATI AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES AND HOMEOPATHY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Service Law — Regularization — Daily wage employees — Claim for regular pay scale with retrospective effect from date of initial engagement — Held, benefit of regular pay scale earlier granted to petitioners in 1999 was withdrawn within about a month, finding it to have been extended without following due process, and the said withdrawal India Law Library Docid # 2447182
(720) M/S. SHYAM AND SHYAM OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GNET IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-06-2026 Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 — Temporary Injunction — Ad Interim Relief — Appeal against an order refusing ad interim protection, while the substantive application for temporary injunction is pending before the trial court — High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits to avoid influencing the trial court and to allow independent adjudication of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and India Law Library Docid # 2447222