Wednesday, 30 September 2026

The dispute. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased company land for over twenty crore rupees under an alleged oral agreement. After filing an injunction suit to prevent alienation, the plaintiff withdrew it citing settlement talks and filed a fresh suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed specific performance and the High Court affirmed the decree, prompting the landowner to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Omitting specific performance in an earlier suit without express leave attracts the statutory bar under Order II Rule 2. Oral land agreements demand strict proof of concluded contract that unpresented cheques and conflicting testimony fail to provide.

For your practice. Litigants withdrawing injunction suits during settlement talks must seek express court leave under Order II Rule 2 to preserve future specific performance claims.

The order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and dismissed the suit for specific performance. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & ors. v. J P Iscon Private Ltd. & ors.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-013255-013255 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1066 · 29.09.2026

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

The dispute. The parties married in December 2016 and separated in 2022 due to irreconcilable differences. Protracted litigation followed, including IPC criminal complaints and domestic violence cases. The spouses ultimately arrived at an amicable settlement to dissolve their marriage on payment of ₹35 lakh. The wife approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer and exercise of extraordinary powers to dissolve the marriage.

The reasoning. Relying on Shilpa Sailesh, the Court held that Article 142 empowers dissolution of an irretrievably broken marriage upon genuine settlement. Quashing parallel matrimonial and criminal cases is essential to do complete justice and secure a clean, final break.

We find that firstly, both parties are agreeable to part ways and therefore to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

For your practice. Demonstrating genuine consensus and a comprehensive settlement enables invoking Article 142 to simultaneously dissolve the marriage and extinguish all inter se criminal complaints.

The order. Divorce by mutual consent granted. The husband shall pay ₹35 lakh permanent alimony in two tranches (₹2 lakh upfront, ₹33 lakh in 4 weeks). All pending inter se civil and criminal cases stand quashed with no fresh litigation permitted.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Case

S. v. State of Odisha & ors.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · T.P.(Crl.) No.-000493 - 2025 · 2026:INSC:1060 · 28.09.2026

Bench

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

The dispute. A revenue assistant took sanctioned maternity leave, leaving a three-month shortfall in her mandatory two-year field tenure. Upon rejoining, the administration transferred her to another post rather than allowing her to complete the requisite service. The State rejected her relaxation plea and promoted juniors; the Single Judge directed her promotion, which the division bench affirmed.

The reasoning. Maternity leave is statutory service that cannot prejudice an employee's promotional prospects or seniority. When authorities fail to post an employee to fulfill mandatory tenure, they cannot cite that resulting shortfall to withhold promotion.

This Court holds that maternity leave cannot be cited to the detriment of the mother's professional growth or promotion in any manner.

For your practice. Practitioners must now argue that maternity leave is service for promotion, rely on Circular No.4/2010 to challenge denials of relaxation, and ensure consequential benefits are granted from the effective date of promotion.

The order. Twelve weeks' time from 29 September 2026 to comply with the Single Judge's order dated 23 January 2026; promotion to Tahsildar from the date immediate juniors were promoted, with all consequential monetary and service benefits; no costs awarded.

Rule 7(a) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules

Case

The Secretary vs S. Menaka

Citation

Madras High Court · WA(MD).1385/2026 · 2026:MHC:4001 · 29.09.2026

Bench

C.V. Karthikeyan, R. Sakthivel

The dispute. A woman lodged a first information report alleging rape, leading to the immediate arrest of the accused. Within three days of the arrest, the trial court granted regular bail to the accused without issuing notice to the complainant or hearing her. The prosecutrix petitioned the High Court to set aside the bail order for denial of her mandatory statutory right of audience.

The reasoning. Affording a hearing to the victim in specified sexual offence bail applications is a mandatory statutory obligation. The victim's right of audience is substantive and independent, and the State's presence cannot substitute for her participation.

Therefore, grant of regular bail to the accused within a span of three days, under such circumstances , calls for being set aside .

For your practice. Practitioners must now serve notice on the informant or her authorised representative before any bail hearing under Sections 376/376AB/376DA/376DB IPC and verify compliance; failure risks the bail order being set aside.

The order. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2026 granting regular bail, remanded the bail application for fresh hearing after providing the prosecutrix an opportunity to be heard preferably within two weeks from judgment, and clarified the accused shall not be re-arrested.

Section 439(1A), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

MS G vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-4970/2026 · 2026:DHC:8405 · 28.09.2026

Bench

Saurabh Banerjee

The dispute. An estranged wife claimed complete destitution and dependence on her ailing father when seeking statutory maintenance from her husband. During cross-examination, she admitted holding joint bank deposits exceeding ₹6 lakh that were concealed from her disclosure affidavit. The magistrate dismissed her maintenance application for suppressing material facts, and the wife challenged the rejection in revision.

The reasoning. Suppressing material financial assets violates the clean hands doctrine and bars equitable maintenance relief. Because statutory support serves social justice, concealment warrants a fresh inquiry into true dependency rather than permanent dismissal.

It is also settled law that any order obtained by fraud from a Court of law can be set aside at any stage to be considered as null and void.

For your practice. Practitioners must now ensure full disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings; any suppression will likely lead to dismissal of the claim. The husband's duty to maintain his wife persists regardless of her education or her parents' wealth, reinforcing the social justice purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The order. The court set aside the order that had denied maintenance and directed the wife to file a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C within four weeks and to serve a copy on the husband.

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

N.G. v. D.D.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/5060/2024 · 29.09.2026

Bench

Chaitali Chatterjee Das

The dispute. Private complaints were filed against the petitioners alleging criminal offences under the new penal codes. Before recording the complainants or their witnesses on oath, the magistrates issued notice to the prospective accused to afford a pre-cognizance hearing. The petitioners challenged the notices, prompting a reference to the Division Bench on the proper procedural sequence under Section 223(1).

The reasoning. The word 'while' in Section 223(1) embeds complainant examination within the cognizance process rather than subsequent to it. Issuing notice earlier renders the hearing right futile, as the accused cannot meet unverified allegations.

For your practice. Magistrates cannot issue pre-cognizance notices on bare complaints, giving defence counsel an immediate threshold ground to seek quashing of premature hearing notices.

The order. The Court held that examination on oath and a prima facie view on maintainability must precede notice under Section 223(1). Formal cognizance may be taken only after the accused is heard.

Section 223(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

DR RITA BAKSHI vs SEEMA BAJAJ & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-2551/2025 · 2026:DHC:8460-DB · 29.09.2026

Bench

Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja

The dispute. The tax authorities confirmed demands exceeding twenty-four crore rupees against a trading company for fraudulent input tax credit availed between 2017 and 2020. The adjudicating authority simultaneously imposed identical personal penalties on several directors under Section 122(1A). The directors filed writ petitions challenging the personal penalties, arguing the statutory provision was prospective.

The reasoning. The phrase 'any person' includes non-taxable individuals who retain fraudulent benefits and conduct the transactions. However, because the penalty is penal in character, it cannot apply retrospectively to acts committed before 1 January 2021.

For your practice. Show cause notices issued to corporate directors must demonstrate personal benefit retention and active transaction conduct rather than relying on designation alone.

The order. The High Court disposed of the petitions, granting the directors four weeks to approach the appellate authority under Section 107. Appeals filed within this window shall be decided on merits without limitation objection.

Section 122(1A), Central Goods and Services Act, 2017

Case

PARAG GARG vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR

Citation

Delhi High Court · CW - 53/2026 · 2026:DHC:8390-DB · 29.09.2026

Bench

Anil Kshetarpal

The dispute. Landlords sued their commercial tenant for possession, rent arrears, and mesne profits following the expiry of an eleven-month lease. The tenant resisted eviction by denying his signature on the notarised rent agreement, claiming the document was forged. The trial court decreed possession, arrears, and mesne profits based on admissions, prompting this appeal by the tenant.

The reasoning. Mere notarisation does not prove document execution under Section 67 when signature is disputed. However, admissions proved the tenancy, and courts may take judicial notice of urban rent trends to determine mesne profits.

For your practice. Disputed agreements require direct signature proof rather than notarisation, while mesne profits can rest on judicial notice of urban rent inflation.

The order. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree for possession, arrears of ₹87,000, and damages of ₹2,000 per day. Mesne profits at ₹25,500 per month with a 15% triennial increase were affirmed.

Section 67, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Case

SIDDHANTH MENDIRATTA vs MADHU CHAWLA & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · RFA-1008/2026 · 2026:DHC:8401 · 28.09.2026

Bench

Neena Bansal Krishna

The dispute. A Pune real estate firm reconstituted its partnership when three partners retired and incoming partners introduced Rs 160 crore fresh capital. The firm paid Rs 144.86 crore in monetary settlement to the outgoing partners, debiting the sum to a retiring partner account. The Revenue appealed after the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted an assessment treating the settlement as taxable capital gains under Section 45(4).

The reasoning. Section 45(4) requires an actual transfer of capital assets, so monetary payments made to retiring partners are not taxable. Because the firm held its land as stock-in-trade, no capital asset was distributed upon reconstitution.

For your practice. In pre-2021 disputes, counsel can defeat Section 45(4) additions by showing purely monetary retirement settlements without any transfer of capital assets in specie.

The order. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the Rs 144.86 crore addition under Section 45(4). The assessee's returned income of nil for assessment year 2019-20 was confirmed without costs.

Section 45(4), Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Jairaj Realty Unit 9Llp, Pune

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No.713/PUN/2026 · 29.09.2026

Bench

R. K. Panda, Vinay Bhamore