(741) M/S MALABAR PLANTATIONS Vs. THOTTAKAD ESTATE PVT . LTD[KERALA HIGH COURT] 01-07-2026 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 55(1)(a), 55(2) — Vendor's duty of disclosure and implied warranty of title — Buyer's knowledge of defect does not exclude statutory warranty — Section 55(1)(a) casts a duty on the seller to disclose every material defect in title known to him and not discoverable by the purchaser with India Law Library Docid # 2448594
(742) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[KERALA HIGH COURT] 01-07-2026 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 44(1)(a), (c), S. 71 — Jurisdiction of Special Court under PML Act to try committed scheduled offence — On committal of a scheduled-offence case under S. 44(1)(c), a Special Court constituted under the PML Act is legally competent to try the scheduled offence even though it is not the notified court for that offence — Section 71 gives the Act overriding effect notwithstanding any inconsistent law — Order transferring the scheduled-offence case f India Law Library Docid # 2448595
(743) SHAILESH R. GANDHI AND OTHERS Vs. LATE RAMCHANDRA R. GANDHI THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 9, 7 and 16 — Composite family settlement comprising Memorandum of Agreement, Branding Agreement, Registered User Agreement and Irrevocable Power of Attorney — Agreements executed contemporaneously as part of single transaction — Prima facie held, disputes cannot be viewed as arising solely from Registered User Agreement — India Law Library Docid # 2447177
(744) RAMPHAL AHIRWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Judicial review of departmental punishment — Acquittal of delinquent in criminal trial on benefit of doubt — Effect on disciplinary proceedings — Held, acquittal by criminal court does not ipso facto absolve delinquent from liability in departmental proceedings — Standard of proof in the two proceedings being different, findings recorded in departmental enquiry on India Law Library Docid # 2447180
(745) RAMEN ROY Vs. SAMBRIDDHI REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(vi) — "Commercial dispute" — Construction and infrastructure contracts — Development agreement contemplating transfer of ownership rights in addition to construction — Held, expression "dispute arising out of" construction and infrastructure contracts is of expansive connotation and sub-clause (vi) does not use the word "only" to India Law Library Docid # 2447183
(746) SOMANATH JANKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Appeal against conviction — Offences under Ss. 363, 366 and 376(2)(n), IPC read with S. 6, POCSO Act, 2012 — Victim turning hostile — Absence of eye-witness — Held, conviction based mainly on circumstantial and medical evidence, in the absence of any supporting testimony from the victim herself (star witness) and no other India Law Library Docid # 2447184
(747) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. UMESH KUMAR SINGH[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-06-2026 Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Principles of natural justice — Non-service of second show-cause notice along with copy of inquiry report before imposing major penalty — Held, admittedly, the second show-cause notice along with the inquiry report was not served on the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty — Following Managing India Law Library Docid # 2447185
(748) 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
(749) 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
(750) 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
(751) 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
(752) 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
(753) 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
(754) 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
(755) 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
(756) 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
(757) 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
(758) 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
(759) 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
(760) 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