Friday, 11 September 2026

The dispute. Plaintiffs sued for possession of agricultural land based on a 1965 registered sale deed. The defendant mahant resisted, claiming the land was dedicated to a gurdwara and asserting adverse possession through revenue mutation entries. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed those concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC.

The reasoning. Revenue entries do not confer title nor prove dedication to a religious institution without an unequivocal divesting act. Adverse possession requires hostile possession; reversing concurrent findings vitiated by legal error is justified under Section 100 CPC.

For your practice. Litigators cannot rely exclusively on jamabandis or mutations to sustain pleas of dedication or adverse title in second appeals.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court decree, leaving plaintiffs to recover possession subject to the vendors' defined share.

Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

BHAG SINGH (DEAD) THR. MAHANT KASHMIR SINGH vs BASANT KAUR (DEAD)) THR.LRS.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-001718-001718 - 2016 · 2026:INSC:983 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra

The dispute. Hindustan Unilever challenged an advertising campaign for dishwashing liquid that depicted a yellow liquid bottle in a grey circular frame, alleging malicious comparison with Vim. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, alleging product disparagement and trademark dilution.

The reasoning. Commercial speech crossing into product denigration receives no constitutional shield under Article 19(1)(a). Actionability depends on the overall impression produced on an average consumer of imperfect recollection.

For your practice. Comparative advertising suits must target the cumulative visual and textual narrative rather than disclaimers alone.

The order. The High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting or publishing the impugned video campaign.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India

Case

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED vs KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation

Delhi High Court · I.A.-22515/2026 · 2026:DHC:7695 · 10.09.2026

Bench

A. J. Bhambhani

The dispute. Police intercepted a female passenger carrying 434 grams of heroin at 6:05 PM before sunset, but completed the formal arrest memo at 7:30 PM after sunset. The accused sought bail alleging violation of sunset arrest safeguards. The accused moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, arguing mandatory prior judicial permission was omitted.

The reasoning. For Section 43(5) BNSS, the time of arrest is determined by when effective physical custody commences under coercive police control, not the subsequent ministerial completion of the arrest memo. Seizure before sunset satisfies the statute.

For your practice. Defence counsel challenging after-sunset arrests must verify the time of initial physical restraint rather than the arrest memo timestamp.

The order. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding the arrest was effected before sunset and that Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity rigours barred relief.

Section 43(5), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

Asmina Begum v. The State of Assam

Citation

Gauhati High Court · Bail Appln./2433/2026 · 2026:GAU-AS:13070 · 09.09.2026

Bench

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

The dispute. Vendors entered into an MOU to sell controlling equity in a sponge iron company, receiving one crore rupees as advance. The vendors failed to transfer shares or reconstitute the board, leading purchasers to avoid the deal. Vendors sued for 5.51 crore rupees damages while purchasers counter-claimed for refund of advance; the single judge decreed the vendors' claim.

The reasoning. Under Sections 51 to 54 of the Contract Act, a promisor who fails to perform an initial condition precedent cannot treat the promisee as being in breach. Absent an explicit forfeiture clause, advance consideration cannot be forfeited.

For your practice. Transactional counsel drafting share purchase MOUs must provide express forfeiture clauses, as courts will not imply forfeiture upon mutual termination.

The order. The Division Bench set aside the decree for damages and affirmed the direction requiring vendors to refund the one crore rupee advance with statutory interest.

Sections 51, 52, 54, 65, 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872

Case

Nirmal Kanodia & ors. v. Umadevi Agarwalla & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · APD/5/2026 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Debangsu Basak, Aryak Dutt

The dispute. State Bank of India's risk management cell froze a commercial current account on suspicion of being a mule account, without disclosing any police requisition, investigative report, or evidence of fraudulent transactions. The account holder filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the unilateral debit freeze as arbitrary and violative of banking directions.

The reasoning. Under Clause 59 of RBI Master Directions, banks cannot freeze operating accounts on subjective internal suspicion alone. Depriving an enterprise of operational funds without verifiable evidence or pre-decisional hearing is arbitrary.

For your practice. Commercial account holders facing sudden internal bank freezes can secure immediate writ relief where no formal criminal FIR exists.

The order. The High Court quashed the bank's debit freeze order and directed immediate defreezing of the current account, subject to standard regulatory compliance.

Clause 59, RBI Master Direction DBR.AML.BC.No.81/14.01.001/2015-16 dated 25 February 2016

Case

Sanjiv Kumar Dalmia v. State Bank of India & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · WPA/13210/2026 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Krishna Rao

The dispute. Property owners engaged a caretaker under written agreements to manage their residential flat in Mumbai. Decades later, the caretaker asserted tenancy rights and resisted eviction, claiming protection under rent control laws. The appellate bench reversed the trial court decree and ordered eviction, prompting the occupant to petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The reasoning. A lease under Section 105 TPA requires transfer of an interest and exclusive enjoyment. Caretaker agreements confer only permissive occupation as a license, and High Courts may invoke Order XLI Rule 33 in Article 227 to direct mesne profits.

For your practice. Property owners can defeat adverse tenancy claims from caretakers by showing absence of demise, while securing mesne profits for unauthorised stay.

The order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirmed the eviction order, and directed the trial court to conduct a mesne profit enquiry from the date of license revocation.

Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

NAVINA DINESH SHETTY vs SHAIKH AYUB REHMAN

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/7067/2003 · 2026:BHC-AS:37423 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. In a criminal trial, the defence petitioned under Section 311 CrPC to summon bank officials to produce crucial loan documentation, which the trial magistrate rejected. The sessions court entertained a revision petition against the dismissal, which the complainant challenged under Section 482 CrPC.

The reasoning. An order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon essential witnesses directly touches the fairness of trial and admissibility of defence evidence, constituting an intermediate order revisable under Section 397 CrPC.

For your practice. Enables practitioners to challenge erroneous refusals to summon crucial witnesses through criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, ensuring that trial courts cannot foreclose essential rebuttal testimony in cheque bounce and property disputes.

The order. The Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 26.06.2023 passed in Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 400/2023, 401/2023, and 402/2023 by the learned CJM, Kamrup (R), which had rejected petitions under Section 311 CrPC for summoning Anil Das as Court witness; accordingly, the criminal revision petitions were allowed and disposed of, directing that petitioner be permitted to adduce Anil Das's evidence under Section 311 CrPC in the underlying NI Act proceedings.

Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

CAMBRIDGE EDUCATION TRUST VERSUS HARI DAS

Citation

Gauhati High Court · Crl.Rev.P./401/2023 · 2026:GAU-AS:13179 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Mitali Thakuria

The dispute. A street vendor holding a provisional certificate was stopped from vending over a covered drain following a fire, with municipal authorities alleging safety hazards from an oversized gas cylinder. The vendor sought directions to continue peaceful vending or obtain an alternative location. He approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking enforcement of his provisional certificate of vending against municipal interference.

The reasoning. When an existing vending site poses safety risks, municipal bodies cannot issue a blanket prohibition or destroy livelihood. Authorities are obligated under the Street Vendors Act to identify an alternative vending space within two weeks, subject to reasonable operational safeguards.

The Assistant Commissioner of the concerned area shall identify an alternative space for the Petitioner where he can vend within a period of two weeks.

For your practice. Prevents municipal authorities from summarily evicting street vendors on safety pretexts without offering a time-bound alternative vending location.

The order. The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to identify an alternative vending space within two weeks, subject to cart use, small cylinder limits, and strict cleanliness conditions.

Section 21, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014

Case

RAJENDER vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-13254/2026 · 2026:DHC:7769-DB · 10.09.2026

Bench

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

The dispute. During liquidation of a corporate debtor initiated under prior rules, the liquidator issued a fresh process memorandum applying amended IBBI regulations that introduced stricter auction and consultation conditions. An auction participant challenged the amended process memorandum before the NCLT; upon dismissal, the bidder appealed to the NCLAT under Section 61 IBC.

The reasoning. Substantive regulatory amendments governing IBC liquidation processes operate prospectively. Ongoing liquidations where auction parameters were established remain governed by the prior regime, preserving procedural vested rights.

For your practice. Resolution professionals and bidders can resist mid-process regulatory disruptions to ongoing asset sales under the Insolvency Code.

The order. The NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the revised process memorandum, and directed completion of the liquidation sale under the unamended regulations.

Section 33(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Garden Court Distilleries Private ... vs Mr. Akhil Ahuja Liquidator Of Honest ...

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Company Appeal (AT)(INS) NO.1138 OF 2026 · 10.09.2026

Bench

Yogesh Khanna

The dispute. A commercial vehicle owner defaulted on loan installments due to business hardship. While her appeal against the district forum order was sub-judice, the non-banking finance company forcibly seized the commercial truck using musclemen. The state commission found the financier guilty of gross deficiency and awarded damages; the financier preferred a revision petition before the NCDRC.

The reasoning. Financers cannot bypass the rule of law through extra-judicial strong-arm tactics. Forcibly repossessing a secured vehicle while judicial execution or appeal proceedings remain pending constitutes unfair trade practice and gross service deficiency.

For your practice. Borrowers can claim substantial damages against financial institutions for extra-judicial asset seizure during ongoing appellate litigation.

The order. The NCDRC dismissed the revision petition, affirming the award of compensation and litigation costs against the finance company for unlawful repossession.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LIMITED vs CHANCHLA KUMARI

Citation

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NC/RP/1501/2015 · 09.09.2026

Bench

A.P. Sahi, Bharatkumar Pandya

The dispute. A senior citizen filed a consumer complaint for refund of fixed deposits against a credit society whose registered office returned postal notices marked closed. Lacking personal residential addresses of the directors, the complainant applied for substituted service through newspaper publication. He petitioned the State Commission in revision after the District Commission refused public notice because directors' addresses were not furnished.

The reasoning. Section 38(9)(a) of the CPA vests consumer commissions with full civil court summoning powers. Under Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC, failure of ordinary service entitles a complainant to public notice, regardless of whether directors' personal addresses are known.

For your practice. Enables consumer litigants to overcome evasive corporate respondents and absconding directors by securing newspaper public notice once postal service fails.

The order. The State Commission allowed the revision, quashed the rejection order, and directed the District Commission to permit service on the respondents by newspaper advertisement.

Section 38(9)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Case

NANDKISHOR MOTILAL AGRAWAL EDAKHIL SR. CITIZEN vs HINGOLI URBAN NIDHI LTD HNL AND OTHERS & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/CB1/27/RP/29/2025 · 10.09.2026

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MILIND S. SONAWANE; HON'BLE MR. NAGESH C. KUMBRE