Thursday, 20 August 2026

The dispute. Reena, widow of Nandan Shet, claimed compensation after a KSRTC bus collided with her husband's car in 2005, killing him and his mother. The Karnataka High Court halved the award on a 50 per cent contributory negligence finding, despite an FIR and charge-sheet against the bus driver. The Supreme Court heard Reena's appeal against the High Court's contributory negligence apportionment and reduced award.

The reasoning. A civil motor accident claim is governed by preponderance of probability, not the criminal standard, and an FIR and charge-sheet constitute prima facie evidence of negligence that must be given due weight.

The High Court erred in ignoring the FIR and chargesheet, which, according to binding precedents supra , demonstrate the preponderance of negligence on one or the other.

For your practice. FIRs and charge-sheets now carry decisive weight in MACT proceedings; a criminal acquittal cannot be used to defeat a compensation claim.

The order. Rs 50,81,876 awarded with 6 per cent interest from filing date; KSRTC held solely liable; High Court's 50 per cent contributory negligence finding set aside; multiplier of 17 applied on monthly income of Rs 70,000.

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case

REENA vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010755-010758 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 889 · 19.08.2026

Bench

S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria

The dispute. Pramod Kumar Shukla, accused of taking money to secure government appointments for the complainant's relatives, had a Section 156(3) application rejected by a magistrate in September 2024. Police later registered FIR No.405/2024 under multiple IPC provisions including Sections 420 and 467. The Sessions Court and Allahabad High Court upheld the FIR; Shukla appealed to the Supreme Court arguing res judicata barred the registration.

The reasoning. A Section 156(3) order is a pre-cognizance procedural direction, not an adjudication on the merits, and cannot attract res judicata.

It held that the magistrate's order under Section 156(3) merely directed or declined to direct investigation and therefore did not determine any right or liability of the accused.

For your practice. A 156(3) refusal leaves the complainant's path to the police open; counsel should advise clients that fresh material can still ground FIR registration.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal on 19 August 2026, upholding FIR No.405/2024 and all consequent criminal proceedings in their entirety.

Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-003931-003931 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 887 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar

The dispute. A group of landowners from Telangana challenged Lok Adalat awards fixing compensation at Rs 10,95,000 per acre for 489 guntas acquired for a Singareni Collieries mining project, arguing that several claimants never consented to or signed those awards. The High Court upheld the awards on the footing that they constituted a class-action settlement.

The reasoning. Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits agreed apportionment only when all persons interested are parties; NALSA Regulations require signatures of the parties, and their absence defeats the award's validity.

The awards do not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were not parties or signatories thereto.

For your practice. Before proceeding to a Lok Adalat in any land-acquisition reference, every claimant must be joined and must sign the award.

The order. High Court order of 7 April 2016 set aside; matter remitted to the Principal District Judge, Khammam, for a de novo hearing of the Section 30 reference to be concluded within six months, with all parties duly noticed.

Section 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Case

SINGAPOGU BABU RAO vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-007838-007838 - 2024 · 2026 INSC 888 · 19.08.2026

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

The dispute. Sahil was accused under Sections 310(2) and 311 BNS of participating in a pre-dawn robbery near Ambala in May 2025 in which a motorbike and phone were stolen. The Punjab and Haryana High Court heard his petition under Section 483 BNS for regular bail after his initial application was declined.

The reasoning. Section 483 BNS requires the court to assess concrete risk of flight or evidence tampering, not the gravity of the charge alone.

For your practice. To defeat a bail application, the prosecution must produce specific evidence of flight risk or tampering.

The order. Petition allowed; petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate.

Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

SAHIL vs STATE OF HARYANA

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CRM-M/44633/2026 · 2026:PHHC:114742 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Manisha Batra

The dispute. Ms. Sen, a former general counsel at Maple Infra InvIT, lodged a POSH complaint on 28 October 2023; the ICC emailed her two hours later that the allegations lacked a sexual element and were outside its jurisdiction. The employer-side employees challenged the Industrial Court's May 2026 order allowing the Section 18 appeal, arguing before the Bombay High Court that the ICC.

The reasoning. An ICC communication that directs the employer to take no action is functionally a recommendation under Section 13(2), even where no formal Section 11 inquiry was held, because the employer acts on it in precisely the same way.

Provisions of the POSH Act must not only be interpreted liberally but in the event of any difficulty, the same must be interpreted in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted.

For your practice. Any ICC communication closing a complaint, however brief, triggers the ninety-day window under Section 18.

The order. The Bombay High Court held the Section 18 appeal maintainable, set aside the Industrial Court's order of 4 May 2026 in part, and remanded the appeal for fresh adjudication to be decided within four months. No costs were awarded.

Section 13, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Case

ANUP VIKAL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE INDUSTRIES & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/7430/2026 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. A man identified only as P was convicted of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl in darkness near a public toilet in Delhi in August 2018 and was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 2025. He appealed to the Delhi High Court against the trial court's conviction under Sections 376AB, 341 and 323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.

The reasoning. Child testimony can sustain a conviction on its own only if it is free of material contradictions and inspires confidence; where the victim's identification account shifted from darkness to a claimed light source unsupported by site plans.

For your practice. Move for early forensic analysis in POCSO defence work; a DNA mismatch can defeat even a detailed child identification.

The order. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of 4 September 2025 and the sentence of 24 September 2025, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 376AB, 341 and 323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO.

Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Case

P (IDENTITY REDACTED) vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.A.-1742/2025 · 2026:DHC:6876-DB · 19.08.2026

Bench

Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan

The dispute. Dr. Alka Chougale was appointed Associate Professor in January 2012 with her retirement age expressly fixed at 62 under the then-prevailing government resolution. The Institute of Science retired her at 60 in August 2025, applying a 2016 GR that the State argued superseded her appointment terms. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed her challenge in August 2025; she filed Writ Petition No.5179 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court.

The reasoning. Where an appointment order has already fixed a higher retirement age, a subsequent GR cannot operate retrospectively to strip that accrued right.

It reiterated that Article 13(2) bars retrospective legislation that impairs vested rights, and that rules made under Article 309 cannot operate retrospectively to deprive accrued benefits.

For your practice. When advising government employees on post-appointment policy changes, verify whether the new rule expressly covers those whose rights have already vested under an earlier order.

The order. The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the MAT order dated 28 August 2025, reinstated the petitioner as Associate Professor.

Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016, Maharashtra, on retirement age of teaching staff

Case

ALKA KRISHNARAO CHOUGALE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/5179/2026 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Suman Shyam, Advait M. Sethna

The dispute. Four candidates applied for assistant professor posts advertised by Haryana in May 2022 on a scheme of 75 marks academic merit and 25 marks interview with no minimum threshold. They filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the HPSC's December 2022 announcement and the result that excluded them.

The reasoning. A recruiting authority is bound by the criteria disclosed in the advertisement and cannot unilaterally impose an interview cut-off after short-listing.

For your practice. Recruitment advertisements must state all qualifying thresholds, including interview minimums, before the process opens.

The order. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the HPSC announcement of 13 December 2022, set aside the result of 23 December 2022 to the extent of exclusions based on the cut-off.

Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950

Case

SURENDER SINGH AND ANR vs STATE OF HARYANA & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CWP/751/2023 · 2026:PHHC:115012 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Harpreet Singh Brar

The dispute. Landowners in Chanda Kheri, Yamuna Nagar, had agricultural land acquired for a Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex; the Collector awarded ₹20 lakh per acre and the Reference Court enhanced it to ₹80,77,040 but applied a multiplier of 1. The landowners appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that the 2018 State notification mandating a 1.5 multiplier for land beyond ten.

The reasoning. Where land lies more than ten kilometres from the nearest municipal limit, the 2018 State notification prescribing a 1.5 multiplier prevails over the 2014 rural-land notification.

It held that this date, not the judicially-created 1 January 2014, is the appropriate cut-off for market-value determination because the notification under Section 4 is the statutory trigger for acquisition proceedings.

For your practice. In acquisition matters, obtain official distance certification from the SDM early.

The order. The Reference Court award was set aside; market value fixed at ₹66,11,575 per acre, multiplier at 1.5, giving compensation of ₹99,17,362 per acre.

Section 26, Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Case

SANTOSH RANI ALIAS SANTOSH DEVI vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · RFA/787/2024 · 2026:PHHC:114134 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Jagmohan Bansal

The dispute. Subhash Chander Mittal, a former partner of a dissolved Ludhiana firm, faced interest demands of ₹24,01,258 under Section 234B and ₹1,08,24,744 under Section 220(2) following a 1992 search. Mittal challenged the rejection before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the plain text of Section 89(1)(a) made him an appellant.

The reasoning. Section 89(1)(a) is self-contained: any person with an appeal, writ petition or special leave petition pending on the specified date is an appellant, and a concurrent waiver application under Section 220(2A) is irrelevant to that status.

For your practice. When advancing Vivad Se Vishwas claims, document the pendency of every appellate or writ proceeding as at the specified date.

The order. The rejection order dated 19 December 2024 was set aside; the income-tax authorities were directed to process Mittal's claim under the 2024 Scheme.

Section 89, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024

Case

SUBHASH CHANDER MITTAL vs UNION OF INDIA & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CWP/24116/2025 · 2026:PHHC:113851-DB · 18.08.2026

Bench

Deepak Sisal, Rupinderjit Chahal

The dispute. Rakesh Sharma, assessed for AY 2013-14 to 2020-21, had his case centralised under Section 127 in August 2020 following a 2019 search of the Alankit Group; the satisfaction note for him was recorded only on 24 December 2021. The revenue argued before the ITAT that limitation ran from the Section 127 centralisation order.

The reasoning. Recording a satisfaction note under Section 153C is a substantive jurisdictional condition precedent, not a formality, and the twelve-month limitation under Section 153B(1)(b)(ii) runs from that date even where the same Assessing Officer handles.

The requirement of 'recording satisfaction' is a substantive jurisdictional condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality.

For your practice. In Section 153C matters, compute limitation from the satisfaction-note date.

The order. Assessment orders dated 30 March 2023 were quashed as barred by limitation, the twelve-month window having run from 24 December 2021. The revenue's appeals were dismissed and Sharma's cross-objections allowed.

Section 153C, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Rakesh Sharma,New Delhi vs Dcit Central Circle 28 New Delhi, New ...

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · I.T A. Nos.2911 to 2918/Del/2026 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Mahavir Singh, Krinwant Sahay

The dispute. The Jogdhian Hari Bhagwan Rastogi Charitable Trust sold an immovable property in Delhi in September 2012 for Rs 11.90 crore and reinvested the proceeds in mutual funds, a fixed deposit, a savings-bank balance, and a current-account deposit. The trust appealed to the ITAT Delhi, challenging the finding that its bank deposits did not qualify as another capital asset under Section 11(1A).

The reasoning. Section 11(5)(iii) expressly includes a deposit in any account with a scheduled bank as a permissible investment, and the word 'any' covers current accounts as much as fixed or savings accounts.

In the present case, the deposit was made in the current account with the Bank of India and hence the same will come within the meaning of the words 'deposit in any account with a scheduled bank'.

For your practice. Charitable trusts may now safely park sale proceeds of capital assets in any scheduled-bank account, including a current account.

The order. Appeal allowed; the current-account deposit of Rs 4,86,304, fixed deposit of Rs 1 crore, and savings-bank balance of Rs 95 lakhs held to be proper investments under Section 11(5)(iii), qualifying for full exemption under Section 11(1A).

Section 11(1A), Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Jogdhian Hari Bhagwan Rastogi ... vs Ito Ward Exemption 1(4), Delhi

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · I.T.A. No. 8317/Del/2025 · 19.08.2026

Bench

M. Balaganesh, Vimal Kumar

The dispute. Lama Rice Private Limited, a Basmati exporter, sold to its associated enterprise goods worth Rs.276 crore in AY 2022-23. The Assessing Officer, acting on DRP directions, confirmed the addition in the final order; Lama Rice appealed to the Delhi ITAT.

The reasoning. Rule 10TA excludes certain items from operating revenue but does not mention export incentives or cash discounts, so both must be included in the TNMM computation.

For your practice. Transfer-pricing practitioners must include export incentives and cash discounts in the operating profit calculation and document a FAR analysis before finalising comparables.

The order. ITAT set aside the Rs.10.40 crore addition and directed the TPO to include export incentive and cash discount in operating revenue, exclude six named comparables, retain Kothari Products Ltd., and recompute the margin.

Section 92CA, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Lama Rice Private Limited ,Delhi vs Dcit Circle 13 (1) , Delhi

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · IT(TP)A. No.66 /DEL/2026 · 19.08.2026

Bench

S. Rifaurrahman, Vimal Kumar