Friday, 7 August 2026

The dispute. Sushil Sharma, a CISF Inspector who joined in 1982 and was promoted in 2003, was compulsorily retired on 6 June 2010 after the Internal Screening Committee assessed his record and found declining performance grades from 2004 to 2009 together with disciplinary entries after his last promotion. The Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition, finding the efficiency decline was substantiated; he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. The Court reaffirmed that compulsory retirement is an administrative measure to weed out dead wood, not a punishment, and the principles of natural justice including audi alteram partem do not apply.

The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted.

For your practice. A challenge to a compulsory retirement order must be built around concrete evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, upholding the compulsory retirement order dated 6 June 2010. No costs or monetary relief were awarded.

Rule 56(j), Fundamental Rules, 1969

Case

SUSHIL SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-008634-008634 - 2012 · 2026 INSC 809 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar

The dispute. Grandsons of Mukkera Muthaiah filed a partition suit in 1998 over ancestral land in a scheduled area of what is now Telangana, where an earlier family partition in 1975-76 had divided the holdings into distinct parcels with separate revenue entries. The trial court dismissed the suit in 2003; the First Appellate Court reversed that in 2008.

The reasoning. The Court applied a purposive construction of the AP Civil Courts Act 1972, reading the scheduled-area exclusion as aimed solely at protecting tribal interests.

We therefore hold that the Civil Court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

For your practice. Civil suits over land in scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh or Telangana are not automatically barred.

The order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order of 01 February 2022, restored civil-court jurisdiction, and directed the parties to appear before the High Court on 24 August 2026 for an expedited hearing.

Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972

Case

MUKKERA VENKATA RATNAM vs VANTASALA CHINA VENKATESWARLU

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010162-010162 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 810 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih

The dispute. A Special Judge in Tis Hazari Courts referred four questions to the Delhi High Court on the scope of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, which extended sanction protection to former public servants. The Division Bench answered the reference, with the State arguing prospective operation and the amicus urging that the amendment conferred a substantive.

The reasoning. Applying generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court held that cognizance under Section 19 is taken of the offence and of the specific public servant, requiring a prior sanction for each accused.

Dilawar Singh (supra) clearly holds that the general law that cognizance of an offence is taken and not of the offender , is not applicable to Section 19 (1) of the 1988 Act , whether pre or post its amendment .

For your practice. Verify the date of cognizance before filing charges under the PC Act.

The order. The Court answered all four reference questions, holding the amendment prospective as to the sanction requirement from 26 July 2018, and directed the Special Judge to list the matter on 10 September 2026.

Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018)

Case

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION vs STATE

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.REF.-1/2019 · 2026:DHC:6342-DB · 06.08.2026

Bench

Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja

The reasoning. A conviction under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires proof that the offence was committed on the ground of caste; without that motive the Act does not apply, and a solitary eyewitness sustains a conviction only if wholly reliable.

No evidence has been adduced to establish that any caste-related abuse was hurled at the time of occurrence or that the offence was motivated by the caste identity of the deceased.

For your practice. Lawyers must now ensure that charge-sheets under the SC/ST Act expressly allege a caste-based motive and produce corroborative evidence, otherwise convictions risk being set aside even if other elements of the offence are proved.

The order. Life imprisonment for murder under IPC 302 read with 34 affirmed for all three appellants...all convictions under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act set aside; sentences to run concurrently.

Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Case

Birendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar

Citation

Patna High Court · CR. APP (DB)-948/2018 · 05.08.2026

Bench

BIBEK CHAUDHURI; RANA VIKRAM SINGH

The dispute. Jail Superintendent Raja Ram Dangi and empanelled doctors challenged the judicial inquiry report dated 3 April 2023 and FIR No. 0336/2023, which named them following the custodial death of convict Bheru at District Jail, Dhar on 27 February 2023 after an alleged assault during a routine search. The petitioners argued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that Section 176(1-A) limits the magistrate to determining cause of death.

The reasoning. The Court held that Section 176(1-A) confers powers equivalent to those in an offence inquiry, permitting the magistrate to examine the complete sequence of events, name responsible officials, and recommend prosecution.

For your practice. A magistrate's Section 176(1-A) report can directly ground an FIR against custodial staff.

The order. Both writ petitions were dismissed. The judicial inquiry report of 3 April 2023 and FIR No. 0336/2023 of 8 May 2023 were upheld. The investigating agency was directed to proceed impartially and expeditiously. No costs were awarded.

Section 176, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · WP 19908/2023 · 2026:MPHC-IND:21865 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Jai Kumar Pillai

The dispute. Amit Dand Pathak faced a charge-sheet dated 21 May 2025 under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged simple-injury offences at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun. The State opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 109 is non-compoundable.

The reasoning. The Court held that where a compromise is demonstrably voluntary, unsupported by coercion, and does not threaten public interest, the court may quash proceedings even for a non-compoundable offence.

For your practice. When seeking to quash non-compoundable proceedings, obtain signed affidavits from both parties and, where possible, a recorded video-conference statement.

The order. The Court allowed the compounding application (I.A. No. 03 of 2026) and quashed the charge-sheet dated 21 May 2025, the summoning order dated 13 August 2025.

Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

Amit Dand Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand & ors.

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · C528/1995/2025 · 2026:UHC:6967 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Alok Mahra

The dispute. Asmita Poddar claimed to be the biological mother of a newborn found injured in a drain on 23 March 2024; DNA testing confirmed parentage, yet the Child Welfare Committee declared the infant abandoned and the parents incapacitated on 18 November 2024 without notice or inquiry. The biological mother petitioned the Calcutta High Court to quash the CWC order.

The reasoning. The Court held that a statutory inquiry under Section 36 and notice under Section 38 of the JJ Act are conditions precedent to any abandonment declaration; the CWC's order, made without any such inquiry, was void on its face.

For your practice. Any CWC abandonment or incapacity declaration is judicially vulnerable unless a documented Section 36 inquiry and a hearing to the biological parents precede it.

The order. The CWC order of 18 November 2024 was set aside. Adoptive parents were directed to surrender the child to the CWC by 7 August 2026.

Section 2(1), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Case

Asmita Poddar @ Payel Poddar v. State of West Bengal & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · WPA/24620/2025 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Krishna Rao

The dispute. The assessee and his wife were nominee shareholders of two foreign companies incorporated in BVI and Singapore, holding bank accounts with BNP Paribas. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and penalty; the Revenue appealed to ITAT Delhi, which dismissed the appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objections.

The reasoning. A shareholder holds no title to a foreign company's assets, so credits in the company's accounts cannot be taxed in the shareholder's hands. A section 10(1) notice omitting the relevant financial year is jurisdictionally defective and void ab initio.

The notice issued under section 10(1) of the BMA Act, 2015 dated 04.06.2018 is void ab initio as it failed to specify the relevant Financial Year/Assessment Year for which the assessment was proposed.

For your practice. Any section 10(1) notice that is silent on the assessment year is challengeable at the threshold.

The order. ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals and deleted the addition of Rs 2,25,53,976 and the associated penalty. The notice dated 04.06.2018 was declared void, and the foreign company credits were held not taxable in the assessee's hands.

Section 10(1), Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

Case

Income Tax Officer, C.R Building, Ito vs Ankita Rai Tiwari, Hd Pitampura

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · BMA No. 13/DEL/2023, CO No. 122/Del/2023, BMA No. 14/DEL/2023, CO No. 123/Del/2023 · 06.08.2026

Bench

S. Rifaur Rahman, Vimal Kumar

The dispute. Log 9 Mobility's suspended directors were directed to help the Resolution Professional of Gensol EV Lease locate 100 leased electric vehicles after both companies entered CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority at Ahmedabad ordered the directors to cooperate; they appealed to NCLAT under Section 61 IBC.

The reasoning. NCLAT held that Section 60(5) vests broad jurisdiction to issue directions 'arising out of' or 'in relation to' the insolvency resolution, not confined to parties in direct contractual privity.

For your practice. Suspended or former directors who hold knowledge of corporate assets may be compelled to appear before a Resolution Professional regardless of any contractual gap.

The order. The appeal under Section 61 IBC was dismissed and the order of 21 July 2026 directing the appellants to appear before Gensol's Resolution Professional to assist in identifying and recovering the EVs was upheld; no costs were awarded.

Section 60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Mr. Akshay Singhal & ors. vs Mr. Keshav Khaneja Resolution ...

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra

The dispute. Vasani Infrastructure filed a nil return for AY 2010-11. The Gujarat High Court stayed the reassessment on 21 December 2017, leaving only ten days of the statutory period; the stay was vacated on 2 April 2018. The CIT(A) upheld the reassessment; the Revenue appealed and the assessee filed a cross-objection before ITAT Ahmedabad.

The reasoning. Explanation 1(ii) to section 153 excludes the stay period from the limitation count; the proviso then extends the residual time to sixty days from the vacating date when less than sixty days remain.

For your practice. Computing reassessment deadlines: exclude the stay period, check whether the remainder falls below sixty days.

The order. ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 2303/Ahd/2025) and the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous.

Section 153, Income-tax Act, 1961

Case

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 3 5, Ahmedabad vs Vasani Infrastructure , Ahmedabad

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No. 2303/Ahd/2025 & CO No. 100/Ahd/2025 · 06.08.2026

Bench

B.R.R. Kumar, Rahul Chaudhary