Tuesday, 28 July 2026

The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata.

For your practice. Lawyers must now advise clients that even erroneous factual orders bind unless jurisdictional defects exist. Distinguish between Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for impleadment applications, as overlapping remedies may still be barred by res judicata if merits were adjudicated earlier.

The order. Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court order restoring the main appeal and impleading Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therein. Upheld impleadment of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in cross-objections. Held that res judicata bars subsequent Order XXII Rule 10 CPC applications if earlier Order I Rule 10 CPC order decided merits.

Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

Sanjiv Kumar vs Shakuntla Devi

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-009725-009725 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 747 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

The words may make such order as it thinks fit in the section, vest the court with a discretion to dispose of the property in any of the three modes specified in the section.

For your practice. Lawyers must now argue possession, use, and financial obligations-not just registration-to secure interim custody of seized property. Registration alone is insufficient under CrPC 451 & 457.

The order. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming interim custody of one Bolero City Pick-up, 3 Excavators, and one Ashok Leyland Tipper to M/s Earth Stein Private Limited. The decision hinged on the respondent company’s continued possession, payment of EMI instalments, and the appellant’s undertaking. Observations were limited to interim custody.

Sections 451 and 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Krishnan Narayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-003458-003459 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 748 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

Freezing of an entire account containing legitimate funds merely because a negligible amount is suspected requires careful scrutiny and must satisfy the test of proportionality.

For your practice. Lawyers must now argue for partial freezes in cyber fraud cases, citing proportionality and the SOP’s strict timelines. Banks cannot defer grievance redressal to investigating agencies, and courts will scrutinize arbitrary freezes for constitutional violations.

The order. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.3 to examine the petitioner’s representation under the SOP dated 10.04.2026. If the disputed amount of Rs. 980 can be secured, the Bank must release the remaining Rs. 2,51,72,192.57. The State must circulate the order to all banks and agencies for compliance.

Section 106, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

Archana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · WP 29117/2026 · 2026:MPHC-JBP:56494 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Himanshu Joshi

This Court is of the view that there is no logical reason why a crime in the physical world is not a crime in the digital world especially when the Copyright Act does not make any such distinction

For your practice. Lawyers can now seek Dynamic+ injunctions to block evolving rogue websites without fresh litigation for each new domain, but must file impleadment applications for court confirmation to prevent abuse.

The order. Ad-interim injunction granted against Defendants 1-30 (rogue websites). Plaintiffs may notify ISPs/DNRs to block mirror/alphanumeric sites via affidavit; ISPs/DNRs to technically verify and block as pro-tem measure. Plaintiffs must file impleadment applications for judicial confirmation. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within 10 days. Next hearing on 28.10.2026 before Joint Registrar and 31.07.2026 before court.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

Home Box Office INC & ors. vs TREAMZY.TO & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · I.A.-18203/2026 · 2026:DHC:5967 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Any alienation of immovable property on or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention to the provisions thereof, shall be null and void and immovable property so alienated shall, after such enquiry as may be prescribed, vest in its owner

For your practice. Lawyers must ensure property transfers comply with the Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997, and registration requirements under the Transfer of Property Act. Unregistered agreements and decrees from incompetent authorities will not sustain claims against migrant properties.

The order. The Court dismissed WP(C) No. 968/2024, upheld orders dated 30.04.2024 and 21.10.2023, declared the land a migrant property, and directed eviction of unauthorized occupants from Survey Nos. 2275 and 2278 of Estate Bagwanpora, Verinag. No costs awarded.

Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997

Case

Mohammad Iqbal Wani & ors. v. UT of J & ors.

Citation

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court · WP(C)/968/2024 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

This Court, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, is prima facie of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for protection of their life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

For your practice. Lawyers advising live-in couples facing threats can now cite this judgment to demand police assessment and protection, as Article 21 rights are not contingent on marital status.

The order. The Court directed SHO, PS Kotwali Laksar, Haridwar to assess threats to petitioners and provide protection if genuine risk found. SHO must also summon respondents 3-9 and others interfering with petitioners to maintain peace. Order does not validate the relationship.

Article 21, Constitution of India

Case

Sonam And Anr v. State Of Uttarakhand & ors.

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · WPCRL/1470/2026 · 2026:UHC:6403 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Alok Mahra

Merely mentioning or quoting some words of a provision is not sufficient to deny bail to a CICL which is to be considered in the light of the factors prevailing around him, but there is hardly any such factors prevailing to refuse bail to the CICL

For your practice. Lawyers must now ensure bail denials for CICLs cite concrete risks under Section 12 JJ Act, not just offence gravity. Courts cannot rely on vague observations.

The order. The Court set aside the orders dated 11.03.2026 of the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge and PMJJB, Baripada, and directed the CICL be admitted to bail on terms deemed fit by the trial court.

Section 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Case

Bablu Dehury @ Ula v. State of Odisha

Citation

Orissa High Court · CRLREV/306/2026 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice G. Satapathy

A party invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the Court is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including those adverse to its case.

For your practice. Lawyers must ensure full disclosure of all material facts, including adverse ones, when seeking equitable relief. Suppression can defeat interim applications even if the case has merit. Limitation defenses must be addressed early, and HUF property claims require clear pleadings and evidence.

The order. The Court dismissed IA No. 4623 of 2022, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. The Plaintiff suppressed material documents, including a 2001 affidavit, 2013 correspondence, a 2013 public notice, and a 2015 affidavit. The defense of limitation was held to be substantial and arguable. All issues were kept open for trial.

Articles 58, 109 and 110, Limitation Act, 1963

Case

Variinder @ Rajan s/o Darrshan Khanna v. Narresh Darrshan Khanna & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · IA/4623/2022 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Farhan P. Dubash

The Defendant when confronted with the big question of proving and identifying the signatures of Sh. Bishamber Dayal, was unable to do so, and admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen Sh. Bishamber Dayal sign on any of the papers.

For your practice. Lawyers must ensure clients provide registered, verifiable documents to prove ownership in landlord-tenant disputes. Oral claims or unregistered agreements will not suffice, and contradictory testimony can fatally weaken a defense.

The order. The Court dismissed RFA 335/2025, upholding the eviction decree. The plaintiff was awarded possession, mesne profits at Rs. 5,000/month from 01.02.2022 until possession, and a permanent injunction. The defendant’s claim for ownership via unregistered documents was rejected, and rent arrears were limited to Rs. 5,000/month.

Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

Triloki Nath vs Sarita

Citation

Delhi High Court · RFA-335/2025 · 2026:DHC:5971 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

The insurance companies in genuine and bona fide claims of the insured, should not adopt the attitude of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other.

For your practice. Insurers must now prove omitted facts directly influenced underwriting decisions; proposal forms must explicitly require disclosures to justify repudiation on non-disclosure grounds.

The order. Appeal dismissed. HDFC Life directed to pay Rs 15,00,000 sum assured with 9% interest from 10.06.2013 until realization, plus Rs 30,000 for mental agony and litigation costs. Parties to bear own costs.

Clause 18, Standard Policy Provision, Insurance Act, 1938

Case

HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kiran Sharma

Citation

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/7/A/598/2019 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member)

The appointment by the insurer of a second surveyor itself would be a reflection on the conduct of the first surveyor.

For your practice. Insurers can no longer appoint second surveyors arbitrarily to reject claims. Practitioners must now challenge such appointments under Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, and demand justification for discarding the first surveyor’s report.

The order. The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the District Commission’s order, and directed the insurer to pay Rs. 10,99,000 IDV with 7% p.a. interest from 08.04.2019, Rs. 50,000 compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 25,000 litigation costs with 9% p.a. interest on non-payment.

Section 64-UM, Insurance Act, 1938

Case

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. vs Ajay Sharma

Citation

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/7/A/698/2023 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member)

The cause of action, which began with delivery of physical possession, continues till the deed of conveyance is registered. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise.

For your practice. Lawyers advising flat buyers must now argue that cause of action for registration continues until conveyance deed execution, even after possession. Sellers cannot evade liability by citing revoked power of attorney.

The order. Complaint allowed. OPs directed to execute and register conveyance deed for Flat No S-4-C, 1805 sq ft, 4th Floor, South Block, 48/3 Gariahat Road, Kolkata within 45 days. Complainants to bear stamp duty, registration fees, and legal expenses. No compensation or costs awarded.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

Mr. Vinay Bazaz & ors. v. Sri Anjan Kumar Singhi & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/19/CC/210/2019 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Mr. Ananda Kumar Tiwari

In as much as an oral contract is permissible in law so, by establishing the facts of payments of total money of Rs. 19,75,000/- and by linking him with the subject flat through the undisputed existence electricity bill so also by unanswered demand notice sent on behalf the complainant, the complainant has discharged his onus of claiming over the subject flat as proposed purchaser.

For your practice. Lawyers must now advise clients that oral agreements for immovable property can be enforced if supported by payment records and circumstantial evidence. Deficiency in service claims under Consumer Protection Act can yield refunds, interest, and compensation even without written contracts.

The order. The Commission allowed the complaint, holding the OP guilty of deficiency in service. It ordered refund of Rs. 19,75,000 with 9% per annum interest from 17.01.2020, Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation, and Rs. 30,000 as litigation costs, with compliance within 60 days from 27.07.2026.

Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

Rohit Bhatt vs Santosh Kr. Chowdhury

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/19/CC/51/2020 · 27.07.2026

Bench

Rajes Guha Ray, Santanu Saha