(761) PRESIDENT, ST.ALPHONSA TRUST Vs. MICHAEL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 19-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Execution Petition — Review of Order — Where an arbitral award is subject to execution, and the Executing Court initially passes an order which is later challenged through a review petition alleging apparent errors in calculations and appropriation of payments, the court has the power and duty to rectify such patent mistakes in the order to ensure it India Law Library Docid # 2447414
(762) MRS. L.JOTHIAMMAL Vs. MRS. V.GANGA AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Compromise between parties — Joint Memo of Compromise filed by Appellant and Respondents 14, 20, and 21 — Court recorded the compromise and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement. India Law Library Docid # 2447415
(763) MR.IRUDAYARAJ (DECEASED) AND OTHERS Vs. THE SETTLEMENT TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 — Special Tribunal Appeals — Jurisdiction — Appeals under Section 30 of the Act involve determination of rival claims of title and validity of title deeds, which are complex issues beyond the summary nature of proceedings under the Act — Such disputes are to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. India Law Library Docid # 2447416
(764) HEERALAL DILIP GOLECHA Vs. GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Trade License Application Pending — Issuance of Lock and Seal Notice — Petitioner applied for a trade license for their soft drink distribution business and submitted all necessary documents and fees — While the application was pending, the respondent issued a lock and seal notice, alleging the absence of a trade license — Petitioner contended this action was arbitrary India Law Library Docid # 2447417
(765) SUMAN KUTIYAL Vs. SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Service Law — Seniority — Provisional/tentative seniority list — Maintainability of challenge — Cause of action — Claim petition challenging seniority under GO dated 05.10.2005 dismissed by Tribunal as premature, since only a provisional seniority list (to which petitioner had filed no objections) had been issued, no final list yet existing — Held, liberty earlier granted to challenge "the seniority list" upon issuance of a fresh list did not extend to challenging a still-provisional list that h India Law Library Docid # 2447963
(766) PADMINI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 — Section 24(2)(h) — No-confidence motion against Sarpanch — Postponement/adjournment distinguished — Where a no-confidence meeting could not be held on the originally notified date for unavoidable reasons and is rescheduled to a later date before commencement, there is no infraction of S. 24(2)(h), which bars only adjournment after the meeting has commenced — Distinction between "postponement" (permissible) and "adjournment" (barred) reaffirmed following Govind India Law Library Docid # 2448228
(767) SANGRAM KESHARI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Service Law — Promotion — Withdrawal on discovery of pendency of Vigilance Proceeding — Odisha Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959, Rule 3 — Promotion granted by DPC in ignorance of a pending Vigilance Proceeding against the employee is liable to be withdrawn upon such fact coming to light, without violating principles of natural justice where show-cause notice was issued and reply considered before reversion — Employee not eligible for regular promotion at the relevant time given pendency India Law Library Docid # 2448229
(768) PRITISHREE PRIYADARSINI Vs. HARICHANDAN TRIPATHY[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of matrimonial proceeding — Convenience of wife — In matrimonial transfer petitions, convenience of the wife, particularly one without independent income facing long-distance travel and safety concerns, is a paramount consideration, though not to be applied mechanically without regard to the husband's circumstances — Opposite party's status as Army personnel posted outside the State and minimal inconvenience from permitting appearance via India Law Library Docid # 2448230
(769) PUSPANJALI SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Criminal Revision — Cognizance order — Scope of interference — Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC — At the stage of scrutinizing an order taking cognizance, a microscopic examination of materials or evaluation of merits is impermissible; interference is warranted only where the complaint discloses no offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive — Pendency of a civil proceeding for annulment of marriage under S. 25 Special Marriage Act does not dilute a prima facie case of forgery/cheating discl India Law Library Docid # 2448231
(770) DEBENDRA NARAYAN PATTANAIK Vs. SANGHAMITRA BISWAL @ PATTANAIK AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Interim maintenance — Quantification — Quantification of maintenance necessarily involves subjectivity; factors under Rajnesh v. Neha considered, including that wife, though a practising advocate and managing director of a marriage bureau, may still require support, balanced against husband's undertaking to bear son's education expenses — Interim maintenance to wife reduced to align with modest earning capacity while correspondi India Law Library Docid # 2448232
(771) RADHESHYAM MOHANTY Vs. KALI THAKURANI REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB-COLLECTORCUM-EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENDOWMENT, BHAWANIPATNA, KALAHANDI AND ANOTHER[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 19-06-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — Condonation of delay — Property of deity — A plea that a suit for adverse possession against a deity is not maintainable merely because the deity is a perpetual minor is misconceived; deity's right to property, though inalienable, remains subject to the general law of limitation — Delay in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree against deity's property can be condoned only India Law Library Docid # 2448233
(772) AYAR GITABEN DINESHBHAI Vs. ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and Gujarat Panchayats Election Rules, 1994 — Election Petition — Recount of Votes — A written application for recounting of votes must be made to the Returning Officer immediately after the announcement of the total votes polled and before the declaration of the result, stating the grounds for the demand India Law Library Docid # 2447035
(773) KANTABEN AJITBHAI BALANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 — FIR quashing application — Allegations against mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law were omnibus and vague, lacking specific instances or roles — Sister-in-law resided separately in another city — Such generalised India Law Library Docid # 2447036
(774) SOLANKI (DARBAR) SURSANGJI SHIVJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — Ingredients of intention or knowledge relating to commission of murder and doing of an act towards it are essential — Intention or knowledge, not the consequence, is material — Absence of necessary intent or knowledge would mean no offence under Section 307 is made out — India Law Library Docid # 2447037
(775) PARMANAND @ SICKY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 313, 374 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, 302/34 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section relevant provisions — Circumstantial evidence — Appeal against conviction for murder — Court examined the prosecution's case primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen India Law Library Docid # 2447136
(776) PRAKASH NARAYAN KAUMARYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2] — Demand of illegal gratification — Essential ingredient for conviction — Absence of evidence proving demand renders conviction unsustainable, even if tainted currency is recovered. India Law Library Docid # 2447068
(777) DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 2(h) — Public Authority — Definition — Test for inclusion in “public authority” hinges on ownership, control, or substantial financing by the government or its instrumentalities. India Law Library Docid # 2447069
(778) SMT. FULIYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Chhattisgarh) — Section 21 and Rules, 1994 (Chhattisgarh Panchayat) — Rule 3(3) — No-confidence motion against Sarpanch — Notice period — "Clear seven days" notice — Held, computed from date of issuance of notice, not service — Where notice was issued on 13.04.2026 for a meeting on India Law Library Docid # 2447070
(779) VIJAY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 165(6) — Restriction on transfer of tribal land — Permission by Collector required for sale of land by a tribal bhumiswami to a non-tribal — Such permission is not to be refused solely on the ground that the tribal bhumiswami will be left with less than 5 acres of land, if the India Law Library Docid # 2447071
(780) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-06-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Scope of judicial review — Limits on appellate court under S. 37 — Court exercising jurisdiction under S. 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions applicable under S. 34 — It cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award and must only ascertain whether the court below exceeded the scope of its power under S. 34 — India Law Library Docid # 2447016