(1) MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of interference — Non-speaking judgment — Legality of reproducing arbitral award — Mere reproduction of substantial portions of an arbitral award in a Section 34 judgment does not render it non-speaking or demonstrate non-application of mind, provided the court meaningfully adjudicates the challenge — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is supervisory and narrower than Section 34 — Court cannot reassess merits or re-apprecia India Law Library Docid # 2455816
(2) MS SHARMA ENTERPRISES Vs. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) r/w 28(3) — Pre-reference and pendente lite interest — Contractual bar on interest — Clause 26 of Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) providing that no claim for interest shall be entertained in respect of balance payments, deposits, delay in payments "or otherwise" — Power of Arbitral Tribunal to award pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) is subject to contract between parties ("Unless otherwise agreed by the parties") — Arbitrator India Law Library Docid # 2455807
(3) DEEPAK RAHEJA AND ANOTHER Vs. OMKARA ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-10-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7, Section 3(12) and Section 5(7) — Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by Financial Creditor — Scope of Section 7 proceedings — Evidentiary threshold to prove default — Standard of proof — Held, Section 7 establishes a summary jurisdiction — The evidentiary threshold for satisfying the Adjudicating Authority that a "default" has occurred is a summary, prima facie threshold, to be discharged upon the preponderance of probabi India Law Library Docid # 2455808
(4) YES BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. AXIS TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-10-2026 Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Sections 36ACA and 45 — Yes Bank Limited Reconstruction Scheme, 2020 — Clause 6 — Deletion of write-down clause from Draft Scheme — Validity of Administrator's order writing down AT-1 Bonds — A draft reconstruction scheme initially included a specific provision to write down Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) Bonds permanently — However, following objections and deliberative consultations, the Central Government deliberately omitted the write-down clause from the final notif India Law Library Docid # 2455809
(5) MADHU KUDAPA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS K. MADHUSUDHAN RAO) Vs. M/S LODHA HEALTHY CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED (LHCPL) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-10-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 23 — Delay in delivery of residential apartment — Refund and Unjust Enrichment — Retention of sale consideration by builder without delivering possession is plainly unjust — However, directing refund of the entire sale consideration (including funds disbursed directly by the lending bank under a tripartite agreement) to the borrower would result in unjust enrichment — Borrowed money remaining unpaid does not convert into borrower's own money merely because India Law Library Docid # 2455810
(6) THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. SAMEER AHAMED N. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 15(4) and 16(4) — Conversion from Hinduism to Islam — Continuance of backward-class status — A person who converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action merely on the basis of social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status — Backwardness arising within the antecedent social order cannot, by itself, be carried forward to confer backward-class status in the religion to which the person has conve India Law Library Docid # 2455811
(7) NAYAN N RAHEJA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 3, 4, 45 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Twin conditions — Standalone offence — Directorate of Enforcement is not bound or restricted by the quantum of proceeds of crime quantified in the predicate agency's chargesheet. Offence of money laundering under Section 3 is an independent offence. A person not named or chargesheeted in the predicate offence can nonetheless be prosecuted under the Act if fo India Law Library Docid # 2455817
(8) ANSXXX AND ANR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 70 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376D — Gang rape — Charge against female accused — Maintainability — Gang rape is a distinct, substantive offence separate from individual rape under Section 63 BNS or Section 375 IPC — The statutory phrase "one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention" employs the word "persons" in a gender-neutral sense — Liability is not restricted to men alone — A woman who acts in furthe India Law Library Docid # 2455818
(9) MINOR P THR HER MOTHER A Vs. STATE & ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21 and 226 — Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Reproductive autonomy — Minor rape survivor — Gestational age exceeding statutory limit — Constitutional Courts exercising writ jurisdiction are not constrained by statutory gestational ceilings under the MTP Act. Reproductive choice and decisional autonomy are integral facets of the right to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. In cases of unwanted pregnancy resulting from sexual assault, India Law Library Docid # 2455819
(10) PAWAN Vs. AMIT GUPTA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting aside ex-parte decree — "Sufficient cause" — Scope and test — The words "prevented by any sufficient cause" must be liberally construed to ensure substantial justice, provided no negligence, inaction, or mala fides is imputable to the erring party — "Sufficient cause" strictly refers to the date on which absence led to ex-parte proceedings — The decisive test is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the India Law Library Docid # 2455820
(11) MUNNI Vs. KAMAL RAMNANI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Abuse of process of Court — Re-litigation of decided issues — Appellant filed suit for cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) alleging coercion and duress — Appellant had previously affirmed voluntary execution of the MOU before the Local Commissioner and the High Court while withdrawing her probate petition unconditionally — Subsequent review and recall applications asserting coercion were dismissed on merits India Law Library Docid # 2455821
(12) QUATTRO WELL PVT. LTD. Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 16 Rule 1 and Rule 1-A — Summoning witness to produce documents — Failure to file documents with written statement — Commercial suit — Trial Court allowed defendant bank's application to summon a witness with relevant loan and interest rate records — Plaintiff contended documents could not be introduced without prior disclosure — Held, a party may summon a witness to produce documents even if copies were not filed earlier with the pleadings — Witness was India Law Library Docid # 2455822
(13) SMT MANJU DALMIA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 188 and 269 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 195(1)(a) — COVID-19 lockdown violations — Quashing of FIR — Petitioner engaged labourers for alleged construction/repair work despite lockdown restrictions and a work-stop notice — Requisite complaint under Section 195 CrPC was duly obtained from the competent police officer, satisfying the statutory mandate for Section 188 IPC — Allegations of engaging labourers during lockdown prima facie attract Sectio India Law Library Docid # 2455823
(14) M/S TATA CAPITAL LTD Vs. UDAY LAL REBARI AND ANR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Non-appearance of respondents despite service — Proceeding with appointment — Notice was duly served on the respondents as established by the affidavit of service and postal tracking reports placed on record — Despite sufficient service, respondents failed to appear or participate in the proceedings — Held, Court found no impediment in proceeding to consider the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in the absence of the respondents. India Law Library Docid # 2455824
(15) AAS MOHD @ASHU Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 397 — Nature and Scope — Aggravating circumstances — Minimum sentence — Section 397 IPC does not create an independent substantive offence, nor does it operate as an alternative to Section 392 IPC. It regulates the measure of punishment by prescribing a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years where robbery is accompanied by specified aggravating factors: using a deadly weapon, causing grievous hurt, or attempting death or grievous hurt. These conditions are dis India Law Library Docid # 2455826
(16) SANJAY SUREKA @SANJAY KUMAR SUREKA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-10-2026 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 19(2) — Forwarding of arrest order and material — There is no strict timeline mentioned in the PMLA to forward the arrest order and material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority, except that it must be done "immediately". The word "immediately" means the material must be transferred expeditiously and simultaneously with the arrest, and minor administrative India Law Library Docid # 2455664
(17) B. ANASUYAMMA (DIED) PER LR AND ANOTHER Vs. B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (DIED) PER LRS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-10-2026 Limitation and Family Law / Property Law — Partition and Title Dispute — Family settlement and subsequent compromise decree — Validity and evidentiary value — Trial Court and High Court erred in holding that a compromise decree recorded by the High Court had no evidentiary value and ignoring past family settlements and valid compromises — Once a compromise India Law Library Docid # 2455665
(18) SANJAY PRASAD Vs. MADHUSUDAN DWIVEDI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-10-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(b) and 19 — Maintainability of Special Appeal/Intra-court appeal against interlocutory orders passed by Single Judge in contempt proceedings — Appellant challenged interim order of Single Judge rejecting compliance affidavit and directing personal appearance of officer for alleged non-compliance of writ court's order — Supreme Court held that civil contempt proceedings are essentially in the nature of a 'Special Civil Jurisdiction' and are not resolved in India Law Library Docid # 2455658
(19) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, CGST DIVISION Vs. SREENIVASA RAO RAVINUTHALA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-10-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 61 and 62 — Limitation and appeal — IBC is a complete, self-contained code with strict, time-bound limitation architecture designed to preserve asset value and economic health. Under Section 62, absolute outer limit for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court is 60 days (45-day standard period plus a 15-day grace period upon showing sufficient cause), beyond which the court loses jurisdiction to condone delay. India Law Library Docid # 2455659
(20) ALLADIN CHARITIES AND ZAKAT WAKF Vs. MOHAMMED SALEEM ALIAS MOHD. WAJID ALI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 14-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 58 and Rules 97 to 101 — Execution of decree for possession and third-party objections — Where a stranger or third-party objector resists the execution of a decree for possession, an application under Order 21 Rule 58 is not maintainable as it governs objections to attachment; the correct remedy and procedure are governed by Order 21 Rules 97 to 101. Quoting a wrong provision of law is not India Law Library Docid # 2455660