Thursday, 23 July 2026

Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion, there is an alleged accidental murder and there is a motor vehicle, but the relationship between the two specifically involving a motor vehicle has not been established. There cannot be, consequently, any liability under the MVA.

For your practice. Practitioners must now prove a direct causal link between death/injury and vehicle use to claim compensation under Section 166 MVA. Mere involvement of the vehicle is insufficient.

The order. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders, and held no liability under MVA arises without causal link. Directed that if compensation of Rs. 8,60,832/- was paid, it shall not be recovered. Pending applications disposed of.

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case

Dilip Agarwal vs Rajshri Agarwal

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.9002-03 of 2026) · 2026 INSC 736 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

Upon merger of the two posts, it was no longer permissible to treat the redesignated Health Inspector Grade IA differently from Health Inspector Grade IB. Since 1997, all incumbents on the posts of Health Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB were performing the same duties.

For your practice. The Court held that an arrest under seven year offences must satisfy Section 35 BNSS conditions. The bench also fixed a firm ninety day outer limit for the trial court to decide.

The order. The Special Appeal was dismissed. The State authorities were directed to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986, along with all consequential benefits. The exercise was to be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment.

Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India

Case

State Of U.P. & ors. vs Sant Lal Sonkar & ors.

Citation

Allahabad High Court · Special Appeal No. 70 of 2020 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Saumitra Dayal Singh

In the absence of any Notification issued by the Central Government specifically vesting the property on the Custodian by declaring the same as Enemy Property, property held by any person or institution cannot be encumbered by treating the same as Enemy Property based on mere ipse dixit of the Custodian, that too, by issuing ex-parte orders/directions

For your practice. Practitioners must ensure that the Custodian follows the procedure prescribed under the Enemy Property Rules, 2015 and principles of natural justice before encumbering properties as enemy properties. Consent orders passed by the High Court are binding and cannot be nullified by statutory provisions.

The order. The Court allowed all three writ petitions, declared that there was no valid vesting of the Wakf properties on the Custodian, and set aside the impugned communications dated 28.12.2021 and mutation entries dated 17.05.2023. The Court restored the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

Enemy Property Act, 1968

Case

Mehta Impex Private Limited & ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · APP/96/2026 · 2026:BHC-OS:16357-DB · 22.07.2026

Bench

Suman Shyam, J., Shyam C. Chandak, J.

From a careful reading of the scheme of the Defence of India Act, 1962, Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Defence of India Rules, 1971 as well as the Act of 1968, it is apparent that the Act and Rules of 1962 and 1971 were emergency and/or war time legislation which were framed with the specific purpose of preventing the properties in India belonging to the enemy, viz., the Nationals of China and Pakistan, from being funneled out of India and also to prevent any influence or economic exploitation of such property by the enemy subject

For your practice. Practitioners must now ensure CEPI strictly follows Enemy Property Rules 2015 before vesting property. Consent orders and NOCs are binding. Natural justice is non-negotiable.

The order. Court allowed all three writ petitions. Set aside communications dated 28.12.2021. Directed revenue authorities to delete CEPI's name from records and restore petitioners' names.

Enemy Property Act, 1968 and Enemy Property Rules, 2015

Case

Mehta Impex Private Limited & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/1080/2024 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Justice Suman Shyam, Justice Shyam C. Chandak

The conviction of the appellant is upheld; however, the sentence is set aside. Further as the appellant at present would be more than 20 years old, there would be no requirement of sending him to the JJB or any other child care facility or institution. The appellant is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith.

For your practice. Practitioners must now argue that convictions for heinous offences can stand even if juvenility is established later, but sentences must be capped at three years under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The order. Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld. Sentence modified from seven years to three years. Appellant directed to surrender before Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria, to complete three-year sentence. If already completed, release forthwith.

Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

Sukhal @ Ravindra Yadav vs State Of U.P.

Citation

Allahabad High Court · Criminal Appeal No. 3125 of 1983 · 2026:AHC:150084 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Justice Abdul Shahid

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the impugned summoning order dated 11.06.2025 is set aside and the trial court concerned is directed to consider and decide the matter and pass an appropriate order afresh expeditiously, in accordance with law.

For your practice. Practitioners must now challenge joint trials under Sections 420 and 406 IPC using Delhi Race Club precedent. Section 482 CrPC provides a robust remedy to quash such orders at the threshold.

The order. The High Court allowed the application. The summoning order dated 11.06.2025 was set aside. The trial court was directed to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order afresh within a reasonable timeframe.

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Rajendra Kumar Singh & ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

Citation

Allahabad High Court · Application U/S 482 No. - 5718 of 2026 · 2026:AHC-LKO:49030 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari

If the concerned Court has begun recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, there can be no question of allowing of application under section 311 of Cr.P.C after the procedure under section 313 of Cr.P.C has commenced, but the application ought to have merited consideration in the light of the offence being the one punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

For your practice. Practitioners must now ensure applications under Section 311 CrPC are filed promptly and with sufficient justification to avoid rejection on grounds of delay or lack of merit, balancing fair trial and judicial efficiency.

The order. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the trial court's order dated 15.06.2026, permitted recall of PW-22 for further cross-examination subject to completion on a single day, and directed the trial court to ensure expeditious conduct of the cross-examination without unnecessary delay.

Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Sri. Ravi @ Gobi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Citation

Karnataka High Court · CRL.P/10259/2026 · 2026:KHC:37874 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

We hold that the remuneration paid by the respondent-company to its Managing Director and Whole-time Directors during the relevant period constituted salary paid in the course of employer-employee relationship and consequently falls within the exclusion provided under Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, no Service Tax was payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism in respect of such remuneration.

For your practice. Practitioners must now rely on employer-employee relationship, TDS under Section 192, and consistency in statutory treatment to exclude remuneration from Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism.

The order. The CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal (ST/30337/2020) and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 19.06.2020. The remuneration paid to the Managing Director and Whole-time Directors was held to be salary excluded under Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. No Service Tax was payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism.

Section 65B(44)(b), Finance Act, 1994

Case

Commissioner Of Central Tax vs Biological E Ltd

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 30337 of 2020 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Jyotishi, Hon'ble Mr. Angad Prasad

The Assessing Officer himself had allowed the claim of revenue deduction in respect of the interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) on the aforesaid borrowings in AY 2020-21 after examining the relevant facts and material placed on record. Therefore, once the borrowings and the corresponding interest expenditure have been accepted in the year in which the transaction originated, the same cannot be selectively re-examined or disturbed in the subsequent year in the absence of any change in facts or law."

For your practice. Taxpayers can rely on consistency in tax treatment across assessment years where no change in facts or law is established. The Revenue cannot selectively re-examine claims accepted in preceding years without evidence of a change.

The order. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the disallowance of Rs. 2,82,95,09,446 and held that the interest expenditure is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii).

Section 36(1)(iii), Income-tax Act, 1961

Case

Jio Platforms Limited,Ahmedabad vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - ...

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No.1770/Ahd/2024 and ITA No.1727/Ahd/2024 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

The Revenue's attempt to reject, through one omnibus communication, all Certificates of Origin issued by a particular overseas supplier, irrespective of the importer, the consignment, the issuing authority or the attendant facts, is legally untenable. Such a blanket approach is wholly alien to the statutory scheme governing preferential trade agreements, which envisages examination of each Certificate of Origin on its own facts and in accordance with the prescribed verification mechanism

For your practice. Practitioners must now argue that blanket denial of preferential tariff benefits based on overseas supplier's non-cooperation is legally untenable. Each Certificate of Origin must be examined individually, and extended period under Section 28(4) cannot be invoked without proving fraud or wilful suppression.

The order. The CESTAT held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of preferential rate of Basic Customs Duty under Sl. No. 967(I) of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011. The Court set aside the demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,43,72,465, redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,00,000, and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Section 28(4), Customs Act, 1962

Case

Balaji Niryat Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata-Port

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Customs Appeal No. 75636 of 2026 · 22.07.2026

Bench

Shri R. Muralidhar, Shri K. Anpazhakan

The source has been duly quoted in the current study that they have taken assistance from the detailed Project Report of Nhava Sheva Port. So, there is no concealment in this regard that secondary study material was taken from that report but it does not mean that no original study was conducted in the case in hand with the present project in site.

For your practice. Authorities must ensure site-specific studies and genuine public participation in environmental clearances. Mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and independently monitored to protect marine ecology and livelihoods.

The order. Appeal dismissed. CRZ and environmental clearance dated 15.03.2024 for widening of existing container berth at JNPT upheld. Clearance granted subject to 20 specific conditions, including preparation and implementation of Marine Biodiversity Management Plan, regular monitoring, and restrictions on dredging during fish breeding seasons.

Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and CRZ Notification, 2011

Case

Paramparik Machimmar Bachav Samajik ... vs Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority

Citation

National Green Tribunal · Appeal No. 29 of 2024 (WZ) · 22.07.2026

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Hon'ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee