(61) HORAKERAPPA Vs. SRI. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE KAVALASIDDAPPA DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 58 vs. Article 113 — Cause of Action & Revenue Entries — In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the period of limitation is governed by Article 58 and not Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 —A mere wrong or adverse entry in the revenue record (such as an entry in Column No. 12 of the RTC) or a revenue order directing parties to approach a Civil India Law Library Docid # 2448820
(62) SMT. SARASWATHI Vs. SRI. JAYAPPA M.N.[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Joint Account Cheque & Liability of Signatory — Where a cheque drawn on a joint bank account is issued and signed by only one of the account holders in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the signatory account holder can be independently prosecuted and held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — The non-prosecution or India Law Library Docid # 2448821
(63) GURSIMRAT GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus & Child Custody between Natural Parents — A writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary summary remedy to liberate a person from illegal or unlawful detention, and cannot be used as a substitute for statutory guardianship proceedings to decide permanent child custody disputes — Custody of a minor child with their biological father (a natural guardian) cannot be classified as "illegal India Law Library Docid # 2448822
(64) ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI Vs. VIVEK KUMAR CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-08-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Child custody order — Non-compliance alleged — Exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction in contempt proceedings — Contempt petition filed by maternal grandparents alleging non-compliance with earlier judgment directing handover of custody of minor child to father (natural guardian) — Held, though the proceeding was a contempt case, upon interaction with India Law Library Docid # 2448853
(65) SHABU KN ACHARY Vs. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 4 and Section 138 — Cross-examination — Permissibility of questions in absence of written statement of defendant on record — Trademark infringement suit — Suit for permanent injunction and damages instituted by plaintiff-respondent alleging infringement of its trade dress/trademark "BABA" — Defendant's written statement not taken on record — India Law Library Docid # 2448854
(66) AJIT DHRITLEHRE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Chhattisgarh Excise Act — Section 34(2) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Grant of bail — Habitual offender — Applicant No. 1 implicated in illicit liquor trade based on co-accused's memorandum statement — No direct liquor recovery from applicant — Applicant had multiple criminal antecedents, India Law Library Docid # 2448955
(67) SHANKAR DAS DHIRHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Gratituity — Excess payment of public money — Right of State to recover — Petitioner challenged recovery of excess gratuity paid upon retirement — Held, mere administrative error does not extinguish employer's right to recover public money — Excess payment received without authority of law carries an obligation to refund to prevent unjust enrichment — India Law Library Docid # 2448956
(68) THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS Vs. SHRAWAN KUMAR KASHYAP AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Limitation Act, 1908 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Writ Appeal filed by State — Delay of 646 days — Administrative procedures and departmental sanctions — State sought condonation of delay claiming time was lost in departmental formalities and administrative approvals — Held, routine departmental procedures without plausible explanation or cogent reason do not constitute sufficient cause to India Law Library Docid # 2448957
(69) DAYARAM KHAIRWAR @ SHUBHAM KHAIRWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2) — Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Grant of regular bail — Inordinate delay in trial — Violation of Article 21 — Appellant detained for over four years — Cross-examination of prosecutrix remained incomplete for over three years without fault of accused — Held, right to a speedy India Law Library Docid # 2448958
(70) X NIL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Section 3(2), Explanation 2 — Reproductive autonomy — Minor rape victim — Writ petition seeking medical termination of 18-week pregnancy resulting from sexual assault — Court held that reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and dignity are integral facets of right to life under Article 21 — Forcing a victim to carry India Law Library Docid # 2448959
(71) SMT. SARITA AND OTHERS Vs. SANAT KUMAR SURYAWANSHI[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — "Sufficient cause" — Scope and applicability — Gross delay of 956 days in challenging Family Court's maintenance order — Discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously upon satisfactory proof of "sufficient cause" — Rules of limitation are based on public India Law Library Docid # 2448960
(72) THE STATE OF ASSAM Vs. MANGAL PAIK BISWANATH[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Heinous Offence — Murder and Rape of Minor — Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of proved circumstances excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence — Suspicion, however grave, or the heinous nature of crime cannot take the place of legal proof — Prosecution must travel the full distance India Law Library Docid # 2448991
(73) RUMI BARUAH SONOWAL Vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claim — Contributory Negligence — Proof Required — High Court held that merely because two vehicles are involved in a collision, an inference of contributory negligence cannot automatically be drawn against both drivers in equal proportion — Contributory negligence cannot be attributed India Law Library Docid # 2448992
(74) SALEHA KHATUN Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Non-Registration of FIR — Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy — Maintainability — High Court ought not to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions for registration of an FIR or for a fair investigation without the aggrieved party first exhausting the statutory remedies provided under criminal procedure law — Article 226 cannot be used as a forum India Law Library Docid # 2448993
(75) SRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA Vs. SRI ALOK GHOSH[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-08-2026 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, and 23 — Specific performance of contract for sale — Onus to prove due execution — Burden of proof — Plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale, alleging payment of advance money and delivery of possession — Defendant denied execution of agreement and receipt of money — Plaintiff and his witness admitted in cross-examination that they had not seen defendant sign agreement — Mere production of original agree India Law Library Docid # 2448994
(76) COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI Vs. M/S DIEBOLD SYSTEMS (P) LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-08-2026 Finance Act, 1994 — Sections 65(105)(zzd), 66 & 67 — "Commissioning or installation" service — Indivisible turnkey contracts — Vivisection, permissibility of — Respondent supplying, installing and commissioning ATMs for banks under turnkey contracts for single composite consideration — Revenue sought to tax 33% of gross consideration as value of installation/commissioning service — Held, during the period July 2003 to April 2006, Ss. 65, 66 and 67 contained neither charge nor machinery India Law Library Docid # 2448636
(77) SUSHIL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-08-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Compulsory retirement — Judicial review, scope of — Order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic, and is founded on subjective satisfaction of Government in public interest — Principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, inapplicable — Held, judicial review is not appellate in nature; interference permissible only where order is malafide, based on no evidence, or arbitrary and perverse — Order upheld as not vitiated India Law Library Docid # 2448637
(78) MUKKERA VENKATA RATNAM AND OTHERS Vs. VANTASALA CHINA VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-08-2026 Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 — Section 1(3), Notification dt. 30-10-1972 — Scope of exclusion of Scheduled Areas — The 1972 Act, extending civil jurisdiction across the State, was excluded from application to Scheduled Areas by government notification — Held, such exclusion is intended solely to protect Scheduled Tribes India Law Library Docid # 2448638
(79) RAJA RAM DANGI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-08-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 176(1-A) — Inquiry by Judicial Magistrate into custodial death — Scope and jurisdiction — Distinction between sub-section (1) and sub-section (1-A) — Purpose of inquiry under sub-section (1-A) is not restricted merely to ascertaining the medical or physiological cause of death — Omission of the phrase "inquiry into the cause of death" in sub India Law Library Docid # 2448804
(80) SMT HANSA BAI AND OTHERS Vs. KISHORILAL THROUGH LRS SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-08-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Conversion of eviction suit to title-based suit for possession — Permissibility — In suit initially filed for eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship, plaintiffs amended plaint upon defendants' denial of tenancy and assertion of title via adverse possession — Separate court fees paid for India Law Library Docid # 2448805