(1) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IV Vs. M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-08-2026 Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section2(f) — "Manufacture" — Test for — Held, levy of excise duty requires two-fold test: (1) emergence of distinct commercial goods with new identity, character or use (transformation), and (2) marketability of transformed goods — A process leaving the commodity commercially the same article is not manufacture, however much labour, skill or expense bestowed — Addition to value alone does not convert a process into manufacture — Conversely, elaborateness or chemical a India Law Library Docid # 2448555
(2) M/S. PATEL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. M/S. ADITYA CONSTRUCTION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Question whether a buyer of goods/services from an MSME can independently invoke arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for its claim against the MSME — Held, not answered — Respondent MSME having agreed to arbitration through Delhi International Arbitration Centre, appeal disposed of by consent with venue fixed at New Delhi — Question of law raised left open to be considere India Law Library Docid # 2448556
(3) KKH FINVEST PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHIESH SHUKLA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Group of Companies Doctrine/Veritable parties — Non-signatory to arbitration agreement — Held, non-signatory may be treated as a "veritable party" to an arbitration agreement where its legal relationship with signatory parties and involvement in performance of the underlying contract indicates intention to be bound — Participation of non-signatory in negotiation, performance India Law Library Docid # 2448557
(4) SHIB PRASAD PATRA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 — S. 114(B) read with West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004, Rule 27(1A) — Sanctioning authority for construction plans — Held, a Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to sanction a building plan with plinth area exceeding 150 sq. mtrs. without the application being vetted by the Panchayat Samiti as mandated by Rule 27(1A); absence of a rule prescribing the specific procedure India Law Library Docid # 2448565
(5) SAHAJIT SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 — S. 9(3) — Organ donation between non-near relatives — Approval by Authorisation Committee — Held, the Act imposes no absolute restriction on donation between persons who are not "near relatives"; the only requirement is prior approval of the Authorisation Committee, India Law Library Docid # 2448566
(6) AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND OTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Passports Act, 1967 — S. 6(2)(f) read with S. 22 and Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Renewal of passport during pendency of criminal proceedings — Held, S. 6(2)(f) concerns the permissibility of issuance/renewal where criminal proceedings are pending, not the duration for which the passport is to be issued; Notification GSR 570(E), issued under S. 22 (power to exempt), cannot be read as conferring power upon a criminal court to determine passport validity, nor as restricting validity India Law Library Docid # 2448567
(7) STATE OF H.P. Vs. YASHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Held, interference with acquittal is warranted only where the finding is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and where only one conclusion — consistent with guilt — is reasonably possible; where two views are possible, the appellate court must not disturb the India Law Library Docid # 2448568
(8) MULKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HP[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — S. 109 — Bail — Held, applying settled parameters for grant of bail (nature of accusation, severity of punishment, nature of evidence, likelihood of abscondence), where the injury was inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon on the neck — a vital body part — indicating intention to kill, and the offence attracts life imprisonment, bail was declined India Law Library Docid # 2448569
(9) LANKA SRI KALYAN RAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) — Bail — Held, on second bail application, where charge sheet already filed beyond the statutory 180-day period, over 238 days undergone in custody, absence of adverse antecedents, fixed abode within jurisdiction, and co-accused on similar footing already released on bail, petitioner India Law Library Docid # 2448570
(10) DILIP M. BOBADE Vs. M/S. LLOYD'S REGISTER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(s) — "Workman" — Designation not determinative — Mere designation of an employee (e.g. IT Delivery Analyst/Administrator) is not conclusive of workman status; what is determinative is the nature of duties and responsibilities actually performed, examined with reference to the dominant nature of such duties. India Law Library Docid # 2448571
(11) UDAY PATIL AND OTHERS Vs. MR. PARESH SATYENDRA VOHRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 21A — De-registration — Scope of power — Power of Registrar to de-register a society under S. 21A is much narrower than appellate power under S. 152 challenging registration, and can be exercised only upon satisfaction of one of the four enumerated grounds under S. 21A(1) — Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the order of registration while India Law Library Docid # 2448560
(12) NITIN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (NSIT)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Held, jurisdiction under S. 34 is supervisory, not appellate; Court cannot undertake fresh evaluation of evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Scope under S. 37 is further and even more circumscribed, confined to examining whether power under S. 34 was exercised in excess or not exercised at all — Interference with India Law Library Docid # 2448561
(13) VANTAGE INTEGRATED SECURITIES SOLUTION PVT LTD Vs. SPARK TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Held, where Arbitrator found no contractual stipulation entitling appellant to unilaterally adjust/recover liquidated damages imposed on it by a third party against amounts admittedly payable to respondent, and such finding was based on interpretation of the Purchase Order and evidence on India Law Library Docid # 2448563
(14) OGULJEREN DERCHIYEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-08-2026 Customs Act, 1962 — Ss. 80 and 125 — Interplay — Held, S. 80 constitutes a special statutory code governing return/re-export of goods forming part of passenger baggage, conditional upon a true declaration under S. 77, whereas S. 125 is a general discretionary provision for redemption of confiscated goods and does not itself authorise re-export of confiscated baggage irrespective of compliance with S. 80 — Discretion to permit redemption of "prohibited goods" under India Law Library Docid # 2448564
(15) AMRAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. GANESH DADARAO ANASANE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Environmental Law — Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 — Institutionalisation & Environmental Compensation — Environmental governance requires institutionalizing enforcement mechanisms beyond framing rules — Under Rules 17 and 18, a Central Implementation Committee must be constituted to supervise implementation and formulate structured, objective guidelines for levying India Law Library Docid # 2448521
(16) K. BHARATHAMMA Vs. BANDARU SAKKU BAI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 17 & Section 151 — Scope and Parameters for Recalling Witness and Reopening Evidence — The power to recall and examine a witness under Order 8 Rule 17 is a discretionary power-cum-facilitator vested primarily in the court to clarify doubts or seeking clarifications regarding evidence already led — It cannot be routinely invoked at the instance of a party at the fag end of a trial to fill up lacunae, omissions, or gaps in evidence, nor to permit fu India Law Library Docid # 2448522
(17) KUNTEGOWDA Vs. THURUBAIAH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 118(a) and 139 — Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt & Rebuttal by Accused — Once the execution of a cheque and the drawer's signature are admitted or proved, statutory mandatory presumptions arise under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt — The burden shifts to the accused to disprove these presumptions by leading cogent direct or indirect India Law Library Docid # 2448523
(18) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT. THUNGALA DHANA LAXMI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 146, 147, 196 and 207 — Motor Insurance — Uninsured Vehicles & Mandatory Coverage — Public Interest Directions for Integration of Technology and Policy Reforms — Despite statutory mandate under Section 146 of the MVA, over 56% of vehicles on Indian roads remain uninsured, severely impeding prompt compensation to accident victims and drawing affected families into prolonged litigation — Recognising the safety of commuters India Law Library Docid # 2448524
(19) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI DEVRAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 141 — Judicial Precedents — Retrospective Application — Judicial declarations of law by the Supreme Court operate retrospectively unless expressly stated to be prospective — The 11-Judge Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (31.10.2002) declaring the subvention scheme unconstitutional took immediate retrospective effect, terminating executive India Law Library Docid # 2448517
(20) ARJUN JANI @ TUNTUN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-08-2026 Criminal Law — Access to Justice for Indigent Convicts — Constitutional Courts must adopt a proactive, liberal approach to condone inordinate delays in appeals filed by incarcerated, marginalized convicts to safeguard fundamental rights — High Court erred in refusing to condone a 3157-day delay in a jail appeal where the convict had already served 12 years of life imprisonment. India Law Library Docid # 2448518