(81) BANESINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 97 and 100 — Right of private defence — Scope and applicability — Accused sustained incised injuries on left leg from sword retrieved by deceased — Law does not expect person under attack to weigh defensive force in golden scales or modulate response with mathematical precision — Right extends to causing death of aggressor when reasonable and imminent apprehension of India Law Library Docid # 2448806
(82) SANTOSH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 120-B and 201 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Commercial dispute — Amicable settlement — Dispute pertained to non-payment arising out of business transactions for supply and purchase of steel materials — Petitioner was implicated as Director of a company having dealings with the principal India Law Library Docid # 2448961
(83) UTTRA KUMAR RATRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(AB) — Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault — Sole testimony of minor victim — Victim, aged 5 years at the time of incident, clearly described the sequence of sexual assault committed by the appellant — Deposition found trustworthy, unblemished, and inspiring confidence — India Law Library Docid # 2448962
(84) RUPESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 405 and 420 — Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings — Contractual and commercial dispute — Non-issuance of mark-sheets following expiry of franchise agreement — Mere breach of contract or failure to perform a promise India Law Library Docid # 2448963
(85) SMT. SONAL MEHAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Dissolution of marriage — Ground of Mental Cruelty — Husband sought divorce alleging wife quarreled, taunted him regarding complexion and employment, and refused cohabitation — Wife, a government employee, refuted allegations and expressed willingness to reside together — Held, trivial instances, minor skirmishes, normal wear and tear of married India Law Library Docid # 2448964
(86) AMARJEET POYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLA MANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Motor accident claim — Fatal accident — Assessment of monthly income in absence of documentary proof — Deceased claimed to be earning from private tuition — High Court held that where documentary evidence of income is lacking, the monthly income of the deceased must be assessed based on the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer at the India Law Library Docid # 2448965
(87) SUBUT SAIKIA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Circumstantial Evidence — Panchsheel Principles — Reversal of conviction — Appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, absconding/disappearance, and alleged surrender. Held, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be fully established without any break, excluding every hypothesis except the guilt India Law Library Docid # 2448995
(88) ALI HUSSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 06-08-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21(C), Section 52A — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 — Rule 3, Rule 10 — Procedure for drawing samples — Non-compliance with sampling procedure — In the present case, 34 separate pouches containing suspected India Law Library Docid # 2448996
(89) 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
(90) 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
(91) 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
(92) 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
(93) 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
(94) 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
(95) 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
(96) 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
(97) 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
(98) 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
(99) 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
(100) 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