Friday, 14 August 2026

The dispute. Nazim Shaikh Hasan occupied a Pune shop as a monthly tenant paying Rs 1,500. In 2004, his landlord agreed to sell the shop to him for Rs 1,90,000; he paid Rs 40,000 and never paid the balance or registered the agreement. The Small Causes Court decreed possession for the landlord, the first appellate court and the Bombay High Court affirmed.

The reasoning. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act requires an express or implied surrender to terminate a lease; mere execution of an agreement to sell and payment of part consideration does not qualify.

The mere execution of the agreement to sell coupled with payment of Rs 40,000/- out of the agreed consideration of Rs 1,90,000/- cannot be treated as determining the tenancy.

For your practice. A sale agreement for leased premises must contain an express surrender clause, or conduct amounting to implied surrender.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving the Bombay High Court's order of 1 April 2026 intact. The decree for possession in favour of the landlord-respondent remains operative.

Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

NAZIM SHAIKH HASAN vs NASIR MUSHTAQ SHAIKH

Citation

Supreme Court of India · SLP(C) No.-017699 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 853 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar

The dispute. Balesh Kumar Kuraiti was convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old girl in February 2016. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which limited notice to the question of sentence quantum and restored the trial court's life terms.

The reasoning. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars retrospective application of criminal amendments; sentencing must be governed by the law in force on the date of the offence.

For your practice. Sentencing arguments must identify the exact statutory version in force on the date of the offence.

The order. Life imprisonment restored under both Section 6 POCSO Act (pre-amendment) and Section 376(2)(i) IPC, with a fine of Rs 10,000 per offence. Sentences run concurrently and include the period already undergone.

Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Case

BALESH KUMAR KURAITI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-003783-003783 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 850 · 12.08.2026

Bench

Aravind Kumar, Vipul M. Pancholi

The dispute. Balku Oram and a co-accused dragged Puni Naik from her home in Rourkela on 17 February 1998, beat her with a lathi, and she died the following morning. The only eyewitness was the deceased's teenage daughter, who filed the FIR a day later. The trial court convicted Oram under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life; the Orissa High Court affirmed in 2022.

The reasoning. Section 134 of the Evidence Act prescribes no minimum number of witnesses; a single credible eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction.

For your practice. When cross-examining a relative eyewitness, defence counsel must establish a concrete motive to falsely implicate.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. No alteration to the sentence was made.

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

BALKU ORAM vs STATE OF ODISHA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-002298-002298 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 852 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar

The dispute. Suresh Kumar challenged a Family Court order awarding his wife Aneeta Rs 6,000 monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court granted maintenance on 24 January 2018 without addressing the electronic evidence.

The reasoning. A secretly recorded conversation is not inadmissible merely because the other party was unaware of the recording; the controlling tests are relevance, identification and accuracy.

The courts below clearly fell into error to hold that it was only at the stage of final adjudication that such a question could be decided. This view would render otiose what has been provided in the statute.

For your practice. Cite Vibhor Garg v. Neha when tendering covertly recorded audio in matrimonial proceedings.

The order. The impugned Family Court order dated 24 January 2018 was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Suresh Kumar vs Smt. Aneeta

Citation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · CRR 4134/2018 · 2026:MPHC-JBP:62140 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Dwarka Dhish Bansal

The dispute. SRS Infratech was accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint by Shyam Chaudhary's legal heirs over an alleged loan of Rs 25 lakhs. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed SRS Infratech's revision in March 2023.

The reasoning. Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretionary power to recall a witness at any stage; delay alone does not defeat an application if the evidence is germane to a just decision and the opposite party can rebut it.

Section 311 of the CrPC is couched in wide terms. It empowers a Court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon a person as a witness or recall and re-examine a person already examined.

For your practice. The ruling clarifies that courts may recall a witness and admit late evidence under Section 311 CrPC if it is essential for a just decision, limiting the scope of Section 482 challenges and guiding practitioners on procedural timing and evidentiary disputes.

The order. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The order dated 17.10.2022 allowing recall of Ms. Kavita Chowdhary and admission of the promissory note is upheld. Interim protection is vacated, pending applications are disposed of, and the trial is directed to proceed expeditiously without further interference.

Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

SRS INFRATECH PVT LTD & ors. vs KUMUD CHAUDHARY & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-4753/2023 · 2026:DHC:6577 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Madhu Jain

The dispute. Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. entered a collaboration agreement in March 2008 with Surya Realtech for the redevelopment of a Vasant Vihar plot worth Rs.11.8 crore in construction cost. The petitioner challenged the Collector's order dated 14 July 2010 before the Delhi High Court under Article 226, seeking refund of the duty.

The reasoning. The court held that "instrument" in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act refers to the original document, not a copy; Section 33 empowers the Collector to impound only when the original is produced voluntarily before him in the course of his functions.

The term 'instrument' as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act refers to the original instrument and not a copy or photocopy of the same.

For your practice. A stamp duty assessment made without the original instrument before the Collector is without jurisdiction and can be set aside.

The order. Collector's order dated 14 July 2010 set aside. Collector directed to refund Rs.82,74,178 (stamp duty Rs.77,74,177.56 plus penalty Rs.5,00,000) with simple interest at 5% per annum from 5 October 2010 until realisation, within four weeks.

Section 33, Indian Stamp Act, 1899

Case

SANSKAR HOMES PVT LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-382/2011 · 2026:DHC:6567 · 12.08.2026

Bench

Amit Sharma

The dispute. Kanwal Chaudhary, a Delhi advocate enrolled since 1995 and registered as an insolvency professional, was appointed Interim Resolution Professional for Ireo Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. by NCLT in December 2018. IBBI clarified in March 2021 that insolvency and receivership services fall outside the reverse-charge notifications.

The reasoning. The court held that GST liability is determined by the nature of the service, not the professional's underlying qualification; insolvency and receivership services are classified under GST code 998241.

the liability falling on the supplier unless a specific notification provides that the tax is to be paid by the recipient on a reverse-charge basis

For your practice. Advocates registered as insolvency professionals must obtain GST registration and issue forward-charge invoices for insolvency mandates.

The order. Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to furnish GST-compliant invoices for the professional fee of Rs.49,04,988 under CP(IB) No.408/2018 and to obtain GST registration.

Section 9, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Case

KANWAL CHAUDHARY vs INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-9410/2021 · 2026:DHC:6587-DB · 13.08.2026

Bench

Prathiba M. Singh

The dispute. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai engaged women Community Health Volunteers since 1988 at health posts across the city, paying them a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.14,000. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act directed MCGM in September 2020 to pay the shortfall against the February 2015 notification rate.

The reasoning. The court held that the phrase "for hire or reward" in Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act turns on the substance of the remuneration, not the label.

The term 'employed' appearing under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act is not to be confused with the concept of 'appointment'.

For your practice. Any body paying fixed periodic sums to part-time workers for scheduled employment must now calculate minimum wage entitlement for every hour worked.

The order. Writ petition dismissed. MCGM directed to pay each CHV the difference between the statutory minimum wage fixed by the notification dated 24 February 2015 and the Rs.14,000 honorarium already paid, with interest running.

Section 2(i), Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Case

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER vs SMT. MANJU TAMRADHWAJ KAMBLE THR. SHRI PRAKASH DEVDAS (ADV. GEN. SEC. OF MAHAP. ARO. KAR.) & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/1158/2021 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. Former members of a selection committee in Sanwer Janpad Panchayat were convicted for alleged criminal misconduct in a 1998 Shikshak Karmi recruitment process. The Special Judge convicted all eight and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment in 2010.

The reasoning. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that the accused actually obtained a pecuniary advantage through dishonest or fraudulent means; a procedural irregularity in a recruitment process, without more, does not meet that threshold.

For your practice. Defending officials facing PC Act charges should pin the prosecution to actual obtainment of pecuniary advantage.

The order. All eight convictions were set aside and the appellants acquitted. Fines of Rs 10,000 paid by each appellant are to be refunded and bail bonds discharged.

Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Case

Vijay Rege vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · CRA 1036/2010 · 2026:MPHC-IND:22814 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Jai Kumar Pillai

The dispute. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited invested Rs 51.50 crore in a bungalow project under a 2007 Term Sheet containing an arbitration clause. The Section 11(6) application filed in June 2016 was heard by the Bombay High Court, which decided it on 12 August 2026.

The reasoning. A referral court under Section 11(6-A) is confined to a prima facie check that an arbitration agreement exists; it cannot examine whether the underlying claim is time-barred, as limitation is reserved for the arbitral tribunal.

For your practice. At the Section 11 stage, confine arguments to the face of the arbitration clause; limitation and merits go to the arbitrator.

The order. The Court appointed Mr S.C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as sole arbitrator. Parties were directed to communicate his contact details within one week, and arbitration costs were to be shared equally in the first instance.

Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LIMITED vs BHAVIK BHIMJIYANI & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · CARAP/14/2016 · 12.08.2026

Bench

Arun R. Pedneker

The dispute. Amulya Paul, declared an illegal migrant by the Foreigners Tribunal in 2018, had signed service reports acknowledging three separate notices between 2010 and 2017, yet failed to appear before the Tribunal for over eight years. The Foreigners Tribunal passed an ex parte opinion on 13 September 2018; Paul filed a writ petition under Article 226 in 2019.

The reasoning. A petitioner's signature on a service report is conclusive proof of receipt, and the omission of a service date is not fatal where receipt is otherwise undisputed.

It observed that the service reports for all three notices contained the petitioner's signature, and that the signature itself is conclusive proof of receipt.

For your practice. When advising clients facing Tribunal proceedings, filing on notice defects alone will not succeed where the client has signed the report.

The order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirmed the ex parte opinion of 13 September 2018, recalled the interim bail granted on 13 May 2020, and directed both parties to bear their own costs.

Section 9, Foreigners Act, 1946

Case

Amulya Paul v. Union of India

Citation

Gauhati High Court · WP(C)/9127/2019 · 2026:GAU-AS:11440 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Kalyan Rai Surana, Susmita Phukan Khaund

The dispute. Teekay Marines, a marine product exporter, suffered a fire at its cold-storage facility in June 2017 covered under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy with SBI General Insurance. Teekay filed Consumer Complaint No. 2669 of 2018 before the NCDRC seeking the disallowed amount plus 18% interest; the NCDRC dismissed the complaint.

The reasoning. A discharge voucher operates as an accord and satisfaction but may be challenged on proof of duress, fraud or undue influence.

For your practice. Practitioners must now scrutinise any discharge voucher for signs of coercion before accepting it as a full and final settlement, and insurers should document any deviation from a surveyor’s valuation to avoid estoppel challenges.

The order. No compensation awarded; the consumer complaint was dismissed; the insurer's assessment of non-performing stock stands; no interest or costs were ordered; the discharge voucher dated 27.04.2018 is deemed a full and final settlement.

Section 64-UM, Insurance Act, 1938

Case

M/S. TEEKAY MARINES PVT. LTD. Through its MANAGING DIRECTOR T.K. NARAYANAN. vs M/S. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ors.

Citation

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NC/CC/2669/2018 · 13.08.2026

The dispute. Five sons of deceased or medically unfit railway employees filed compassionate-appointment applications between 1996 and 2003 but were appointed only in August 2005, after the NPS cut-off. The Tribunal heard their challenge to orders dated 29 December 2023 and 8 October 2020 that had confirmed their NPS classification.

The reasoning. A 2026 DoPT Office Memorandum, adopted by the Railway Board as RBE 49/2026, expressly declared the date of compassionate-appointment application the decisive date for OPS eligibility.

For your practice. In pension disputes involving compassionate appointments, eligibility arguments must now turn on the application date.

The order. The Tribunal quashed the orders dated 29 December 2023 and 8 October 2020, declared the five applicants eligible for the Old Pension Scheme, and directed the respondents to effect their inclusion within sixty days. No costs were awarded.

CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

Case

Rakesh Kumar vs East Central Railway

Citation

Central Administrative Tribunal · O.A. No. 050/00291/2024 · 13.08.2026

Bench

Kumar Rajesh Chandra