Friday, 21 August 2026

The dispute. Following a decoy raid at a private hospital for alleged sex determination, the District Magistrate lodged an FIR. The police investigated the matter and filed a criminal charge sheet for statutory and penal offences against the doctors. The High Court quashed the police charge sheet, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court on certified questions.

The reasoning. The special statute vests investigative powers exclusively in the Appropriate Authority, barring independent police investigation. Magistrates are barred from taking cognizance on police reports and may act solely upon formal statutory complaints.

For your practice. Prosecutions under the Act must originate as complaints from the statutory authority, while any accompanying penal code offences proceed separately.

The order. The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot investigate statutory sex-selection offences and magistrates cannot take cognizance on police reports. The appeal was disposed of with a remand to the High Court for consequential orders.

Section 27, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994

Case

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs BRIJ PAL SINGH

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-002938 - 2025 · 2026:INSC:901 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

The dispute. A paediatrician husband earning two lakh rupees monthly separated from his gynaecologist wife, who earned one lakh fifty thousand rupees. The mother sought interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for their two minor daughters in her custody. The Family Court awarded thirty thousand rupees monthly per child, but the High Court halved each award citing the mother's salary.

The reasoning. Child maintenance is a shared parental duty that cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. A mother's professional earnings do not justify reducing the father's obligation without demonstrating an error in the trial assessment.

The obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, but it cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.

For your practice. Courts will not reduce a father's child maintenance obligation merely because the custodial mother earns a substantial independent income.

The order. The Supreme Court restored interim maintenance of thirty thousand rupees monthly per child and directed payment of arrears within three months.

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

SUJATA KUMARI vs RAHUL KUMAR

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-003970-003970 - 2026 · 2026:INSC:896 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

The dispute. Legal heirs of a deceased co-owner filed a civil suit for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction over agricultural land. The surviving brother resisted the partition claim by asserting adoption and an unverified 1990 revenue relinquishment. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed them on limitation in second appeal.

The reasoning. Section 100 CPC bars second-appeal courts from disturbing factual findings absent manifest perversity. Revenue mutations do not extinguish title, and limitation runs only from the discovery of adverse claims.

A finding is not rendered perverse simply because the High Court, upon a fresh look at the evidence, considers a different inference preferable.

For your practice. Appellate practitioners must establish patent illegality to displace concurrent factual decrees, as alternative evidential inferences cannot sustain a second appeal.

The order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the decrees of the lower courts. Each appellant was confirmed a one-tenth share in the suit property with entitlement to partition and permanent injunction.

Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

JAMNABAI vs VASUDEV

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-011173-011173 - 2026 · 2026:INSC:900 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih

The dispute. IDBI Trusteeship sued personal guarantors to recover over fifteen crore rupees following a principal borrower's corporate default. A guarantor resisted, claiming that the creditor's pending insolvency petition against him triggered a statutory interim moratorium barring civil suits. He moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint as legally barred.

The reasoning. Remedial statutory amendments operate quasi-retroactively on pending proceedings to prevent abuse. Section 96(4) of the IBC therefore applies to pending petitions, extinguishing the guarantor's interim-moratorium shield against civil claims.

For your practice. Creditors may pursue civil recovery and injunctions against personal guarantors without being stalled by pending Section 95 insolvency applications.

The order. The High Court dismissed the guarantor's Order VII Rule 11 application and held the suit maintainable. The commercial proceedings against the personal guarantors were directed to continue on merits.

Section 96, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026)

Case

IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED vs MANISH JAIN & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM)-800/2025 · 2026:DHC:6887 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Tushar Rao Gedela

The dispute. Transport contractors awarded LPG carriage tenders verified their Tata-make trucks using DigiLocker and Vahan portal records. The transport firms filed writ petitions challenging the show-cause orders that placed them on a holiday list for alleged forgery.

The reasoning. Electronic records on DigiLocker are statutorily equivalent to original documents under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Allegations of forgery require concrete proof of deliberate fabrication, not mere omissions in a manufacturer's internal records.

These electronic records available on DigiLocker or mParivahan are deemed to be legally recognised at par with the original documents as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

For your practice. Litigants can rely on authorised portal records as primary proof of compliance, placing the burden on opponents to produce positive evidence of forgery.

The order. The High Court quashed the blacklisting orders dated 2 March 2026. It directed the petitioners to replace the disputed trucks with conforming vehicles and ordered Indian Oil Corporation Limited to induct them within one week.

Information Technology Act, 2000

Case

K.C. TRANSPORT AND ASSOCIATES vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ors.

Citation

Gauhati High Court · WP(C)/1549/2026 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

The dispute. A trademark owner suing a nutraceutical manufacturer over the mark RewireX concealed its earlier cease-and-desist notice and trademark objections. The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte restraining order after portraying the dispute as an urgent market discovery. The Single Judge granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction without recording reasons, which the manufacturer challenged before the Division Bench.

The reasoning. Applicants seeking ex-parte relief owe utmost candour and must disclose all prior notices under the Statement of Truth. Concealing prior objections creates false urgency to bypass mediation and invalidates an unreasoned order under Order XXXIX Rule 3.

For your practice. Commercial plaintiffs must disclose all prior correspondence and trademark registry objections in interim applications to prevent immediate vacatur and heavy costs.

The order. The Division Bench vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim application, released seized goods from Superdari, and imposed two lakh rupees costs payable within two weeks.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Case

NUGENESYS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR vs CELAGENEX RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM)-167/2026 · 2026:DHC:6947-DB · 20.08.2026

Bench

V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

The dispute. A husband knowingly married a woman having a young son from a previous marriage and later fathered a daughter. Following separation, the wife and both children claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC against the husband, who earned over one lakh fifty thousand rupees monthly. The Family Court granted maintenance to the wife and daughter but rejected the son's claim for lack of biological paternity, prompting this revision.

The reasoning. A spouse knowingly marrying a parent assumes family obligations and cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for lacking biological ties. Quantum must reflect effective income rather than salary reduced by non-statutory deductions.

For your practice. Spouses cannot escape child maintenance by disclaiming biological paternity where they knowingly accepted step-children upon marriage.

The order. The High Court enhanced monthly maintenance to ten thousand rupees for the wife and thirty thousand rupees for the daughter, and awarded ten thousand rupees monthly to the step-son until majority.

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Revisionist vs State Of Uttarakhand

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · CRLR/100/2022 · 2026:UHC:7531 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Alok Mahra

The dispute. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to sixteen months imprisonment with a heavy fine. In his pending appeal, the appellate court directed a twenty percent compensation deposit and issued warrants upon default. The convict challenged the pre-deposit direction and the non-bailable warrants before the High Court citing severe financial distress.

The reasoning. The deposit condition under Section 148 is discretionary and can be waived upon genuine financial incapacity. Coercive process should not be deployed mechanically where inability to pay is established during a pending appeal.

the abovesaid direction regarding deposit of 20% of the amount is waived and coercive process is recalled.

For your practice. Lawyers handling NI Act convictions must now recognize that a High Court can set aside a Section 148 deposit order when the appellant shows genuine financial distress and the appeal is pending, preventing unnecessary coercive measures and ensuring speedy appellate review.

The order. The Court waived the direction to deposit twenty percent of the compensation amount, recalled the non-bailable warrants, and ordered the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within six weeks. The petitioner remains sentenced to sixteen months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.70,50,000, but no further monetary deposit is required pending the appeal.

Section 148, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Case

CHANDER MOHAN vs SANJEEV KUMAR TYAGI

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-1728/2026 · 2026:DHC:6929 · 19.08.2026

Bench

Manoj Jain

The dispute. A consumer used the Flipkart Pay Later digital credit facility financed by IDFC First Bank and made all scheduled payments on time. Despite timely repayments, the bank wrongfully reported the consumer as a defaulter, causing a severe drop in his CIBIL credit score. The consumer appealed against the District Commission's order that dismissed his complaint seeking compensation and credit score rectification.

The reasoning. A bank financing digital credit is a service provider and cannot claim intermediary immunity under the Information Technology Act.

For your practice. Fintech lending partners cannot avoid consumer liability through intermediary defences, making financing banks directly accountable for credit report inaccuracies.

The order. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order. It directed IDFC First Bank to correct the consumer's CIBIL score, pay Rs 50,000 compensation, and pay Rs 10,000 litigation costs.

Section 41, Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Case

SHRI UTKARSH PANWAR S/o. yogendra panwar vs IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/5/FA/6/2025 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Kumkum Rani, B.S. Manral

The dispute. An assessee declared income of Rs 4,81,640 under the new tax regime, claiming a Section 87A rebate on short-term capital gains. The Central Processing Centre denied the rebate and rejected rectification, treating special-rate gains as ineligible. The Revenue appealed after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the denial and granted the rebate.

The reasoning. Section 87A applies to total computed tax without differentiating between slab and special rates. Administrative circulars cannot override clear statutory text or restrict relief absent express legislative exclusions.

section 87A operates on the total tax computed, whether it includes tax at slab rates or special rates, and applies so long as the total income threshold is met.

For your practice. Assessees under the new regime can claim Section 87A rebates against special-rate gains, resisting automated denials based on circulars.

The order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the Rs 25,000 rebate for assessment year 2024-25, recomputing tax accordingly.

Section 87A, Income-tax Act, 1961

Case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawaer, ... vs Rajshree Kothari, Beawar

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No. 399/JPR/2026 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Annapurna Gupta, Kuldip Singh

The dispute. The complainants purchased a residential flat after a prior allotment was cancelled, paying the entire sixty-seven lakh consideration and taking possession. Despite repeated requests, the developers and landowners failed to execute the registered conveyance deed. The purchasers filed an original consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking deed execution and compensation.

The reasoning. A subsequent flat purchaser upon cancellation of an earlier agreement qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(7). Developers and landowners are jointly liable to execute the conveyance deed, and non-execution constitutes deficiency of service.

The Consumer complaint is allowed exparte.

For your practice. The ruling expands the definition of consumer to include later buyers and imposes joint liability on developers to execute conveyance documents. Lawyers must now draft pleadings that expressly claim specific performance under Section 35(1)(a) and seek clear compliance timelines to enforce consumer rights effectively.

The order. Rs 1,00,000 compensation, Rs 25,000 litigation cost, execution and registration of the deed of conveyance, and supply of the completion certificate are ordered. All directions must be complied with within eight weeks from the order dated 20 August 2026.

Section 2(7), Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Case

SMT. KRISHNA SEN vs SMT. PAPIYA BAKULY & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/19/CC/79/2024 · 20.08.2026

Bench

Bibhas Ranjan De, Mridula Roy