Tuesday, 22 September 2026

The dispute. An accused arrested in a POCSO case was detained beyond twenty-four hours without being furnished written grounds of arrest. The magistrate ordered his immediate release after finding the initial arrest unconstitutional. The High Court refused to restrain re-arrest and directed him to pursue remedies against erring officers, which the accused appealed.

The reasoning. Article 22(2) breaches mandate public law compensation payable by the State rather than leaving victims to sue individual police officers. Any subsequent re-arrest requires prior written grounds and formal judicial sanction.

For your practice. Custody challenges can now directly seek State compensation while forcing police to obtain judicial leave before attempting re-arrest.

The order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed compliance with procedural safeguards and compensation principles.

Article 22 of the Constitution of India

Case

JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL vs STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-004234-004234 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1022 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar

The dispute. A seventeen-year-old student was raped and murdered in 2012, and the sole accused was acquitted by the trial court due to compromised forensic handling and missing evidence. The victim mother sought a fresh independent probe into unnamed suspects. The High Court dismissed her writ petition holding reinvestigation impermissible after acquittal, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Inherent constitutional powers permit ordering a de novo investigation even after acquittal where fundamental investigative lapses cause a failure of justice. The double jeopardy bar protects the acquitted individual but cannot shield unexplored suspects.

For your practice. Victims can reopen stalled criminal cases by proving specific chain-of-custody failures rather than accepting an acquittal as final closure.

The order. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and directed Karnataka to constitute a fresh special investigation team to complete the inquiry in three months.

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

KUSUMAVATI GOWDA vs THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-004477-004477 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1030 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva

The dispute. A father challenged an order directing him to pay three thousand rupees monthly maintenance to his adult son suffering from severe locomotor and cognitive impairment. The father argued that maintenance duties ceased upon the child turning eighteen. The High Court dismissed the father's criminal revision and directed the trial court to expedite recovery of accumulated arrears.

The reasoning. Under Section 125(1)(c) of the CrPC, a father remains legally obligated to maintain a child who has attained majority if physical or mental disability prevents self-sustenance. The attainment of adulthood does not extinguish parental maintenance duties.

While the primary provision applies to minors, the statutory provisos carve out a vital exception, extending protection to a major child (not being a married daughter) who, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain himself.

For your practice. Practitioners must now argue that maintenance obligations under Section 125(1)(c) persist for major disabled children, that asset disclosure is not required in static continuation proceedings under Section 127, and that parents can act as next friends for disabled adult children.

The order. The Court affirmed the impugned orders dated 31 March 2022 and 10 January 2023, maintained the monthly maintenance amount at Rs. 3,000 as fixed in July 2012, directed the trial court to expedite execution proceedings and ensure strict compliance with payment of arrears and costs, and passed no order as to costs.

Section 125(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Samit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/534/2023 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Uday Kumar

The dispute. An industrial consumer that funded a dedicated transmission line challenged a utility order permitting a rival unit to tap into the line. The state electricity commission dismissed the review petition through a purely technical two-member bench. The consumer filed a writ petition challenging the order as coram non judice for lack of a judicial member.

The reasoning. Whenever a regulatory commission exercises judicial power deciding private rights, its bench must include a member possessing judicial qualifications or legal practice experience. Orders passed by technical members alone are void for want of jurisdiction.

The impugned order does not fall under any of these categories, as it simply decides the dispute concerning tapping of an existing dedicated line and does not pertain to any of these powers/functions.

For your practice. Litigators can void adverse regulatory tribunal orders by examining bench coram where adjudications proceed without a qualified legal member.

The order. The High Court set aside the commission order and remanded the matter for fresh hearing before a reconstituted bench containing a legal member.

Section 86(1)(f), Electricity Act, 2003

Case

M/S AMBEY INDUSTRIES vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (PSPCL) & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CWP/4732/2026 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Tribhuvan Dahiya

The dispute. Flat purchasers of a building in a multi-plot layout formed an independent cooperative society instead of joining the parent society. The competent authority rejected their deemed conveyance application citing plot boundaries and an electrical substation. The petitioner society challenged the rejection in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

The reasoning. Acquiescing to an independent society's registration estops a parent society from denying proportionate conveyance.

As observed above, with sanction of a common plan for all the three plots, the individuality of Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was lost.

For your practice. Redevelopment litigators can secure proportionate conveyance in composite layouts based on sanctioned BUA rather than original plot boundaries.

The order. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to issue deemed conveyance for 2139.14 square metres within four months.

Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 issued by Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra

Case

BEAU MONDE PLOT NO. 1 CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY THR REP RAJESH PATEL vs DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/9139/2026 · 2026:BHC-AS:38444 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. Government and a contractor filed cross-petitions under Section 34 challenging an arbitral award where specific financial claims had been decided without supporting rationale. Both disputants agreed that the tribunal had omitted foundational analysis. Both parties jointly sought remission before the High Court rather than setting aside the entire award.

The reasoning. Where arbitral findings suffer from absent or inadequate reasoning on specific claims, Section 34(4) permits remission to the arbitrator if the parties are ad idem. Consensual remission preserves the arbitral process while ensuring reasoned determinations.

For your practice. Arbitration counsel can cure unreasoned award defects through consensual Section 34(4) remission without incurring the expense of de novo arbitration.

The order. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petitions and remitted the matter to the arbitrator for fresh adjudication with directions to return the record.

Section 34(4), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

UNION OF INDIA vs M/S SATISH BUILDER

Citation

Delhi High Court · O.M.P. (COMM)-38/2020 · 2026:DHC:8123 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Om Prakash Shukla

The dispute. Promoter guarantors of a corporate debtor faced recovery proceedings for crystallised bank dues exceeding one hundred and forty-nine crore rupees. They sought to restrict their liability under a deed of guarantee to the market value of mortgaged properties. The NCLT rejected their limited liability plea in insolvency proceedings, and the guarantors appealed.

The reasoning. Where earlier clauses in a deed impose joint and several liability for the entire debt, a subsequent security clause cannot override that primary obligation.

For your practice. Guarantors cannot shield personal assets by relying on subsequent property schedules when earlier recitals undertake unconditional debt liability.

The order. The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals and affirmed the guarantors joint and several personal liability for the full adjudicated sum.

Section 114, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

Nilay R. Shah vs Prawincharan Prafulcharan Dwary Rp Of ...

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS) 702/2026 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Yogesh Khanna