LRTHE NATIONAL MONTHLY LEDGER

Indian Court Judgments in May 2026: LawLens Monthly Reporter

Explore 1389 LawLens reports on Indian court judgments published in May 2026, with case summaries, legal issues and key holdings.

← BACK TO LAWLENS REPORTER

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

May 2026 Judgments

1389 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Post-Commencement Awards Under 1894 Act Require Compensation Redetermination Under LARR Act, 2013 Summary: The High Court of Kerala held that where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no award was passed prior to January 1, 2014, compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as per Section 24(1)(a). The Court further ruled that sale deeds executed by owners after surrendering physical possession to the State are *void ab initio*, as the owners are legally divested of the capacity to alienate the property once it vests in the State. Consequently, negotiated agreements (Form 10(a)) cannot be used to bypass the statutory mandate for fair compensation under the 2013 Act. Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals: * Section 24(1)(a) Mandate: If the award process is pending as of 01.01.2014, all provisions of the 2013 Act regarding compensation (including 100% solatium) apply regardless of when the notification was issued. * Legal Incapacity post-Vesting: Once possession is surrendered, the owner’s proprietary interest converts solely into a right to receive compensation; any subsequent sale deed execution is non-est in law. * Negotiated Purchase vs. Compulsory Acquisition: While the State may purchase land via negotiation, it cannot use "agreed prices" to circumvent the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act if the award was not finalized before the Act's commencement.. RAVIKUMAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., vs STATE OF KERALA,. Kerala High Court. LawLens

Kerala High Court·

Property and Real Estate LawAdministrative and Public Law

### Post-Commencement Awards Under 1894 Act Require Compensation Redetermination Under LARR Act, 2013 Summary: The High Court of Kerala held that where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no award was passed prior to January 1, 2014, compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as per Section 24(1)(a). The Court further ruled that sale deeds executed by owners after surrendering physical possession to the State are *void ab initio*, as the owners are legally divested of the capacity to alienate the property once it vests in the State. Consequently, negotiated agreements (Form 10(a)) cannot be used to bypass the statutory mandate for fair compensation under the 2013 Act. Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals: * Section 24(1)(a) Mandate: If the award process is pending as of 01.01.2014, all provisions of the 2013 Act regarding compensation (including 100% solatium) apply regardless of when the notification was issued. * Legal Incapacity post-Vesting: Once possession is surrendered, the owner’s proprietary interest converts solely into a right to receive compensation; any subsequent sale deed execution is non-est in law. * Negotiated Purchase vs. Compulsory Acquisition: While the State may purchase land via negotiation, it cannot use "agreed prices" to circumvent the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act if the award was not finalized before the Act's commencement.

The petitioners, two private limited companies, owned 2.232 acres of land in Ernakulam, which were subject to acquisition for the Atlantis Railway Overbridge via Section 4(1) notification on 14.08.2012 and Section 6(1...

3 MIN READ

HEADLINE: Vague and Verbatim Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Constitute Abuse of Process Warranting Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Summary: The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings involving grave charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and POCSO Act, observing that the allegations were "generic, vague, and omnibus" in nature. The Court noted that the statements of the complainant and the victim were verbatim reproductions, indicating tutoring, and were filed amid a history of matrimonial discord. Emphasizing the lack of medical evidence to support serious allegations like rape and physical assault, the Court ruled that setting criminal law in motion based on "phantom claims" intended for personal vendetta constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process. The judgment further cautions the legal fraternity against encouraging vexatious "matrimonial bouquets" of litigation designed to exert pressure on spouses.. Ishwar Chand Sharma vs State Of U.P.. Supreme Court. LawLens

Supreme Court·

Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

HEADLINE: Vague and Verbatim Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Constitute Abuse of Process Warranting Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Summary: The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings involving grave charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and POCSO Act, observing that the allegations were "generic, vague, and omnibus" in nature. The Court noted that the statements of the complainant and the victim were verbatim reproductions, indicating tutoring, and were filed amid a history of matrimonial discord. Emphasizing the lack of medical evidence to support serious allegations like rape and physical assault, the Court ruled that setting criminal law in motion based on "phantom claims" intended for personal vendetta constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process. The judgment further cautions the legal fraternity against encouraging vexatious "matrimonial bouquets" of litigation designed to exert pressure on spouses.

The Appellants (husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the Complainant) were embroiled in over ten civil and criminal litigations with Respondent No. 2 following a matrimonial separation in 2011.

2 MIN READ

### Non-Deductibility of Group Insurance Benefits and Inclusion of Transport Allowance in Motor Accident Compensation Case Brief: * Negligence: The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence against the offending vehicle based on the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur* and the preponderance of probabilities. The driver’s admission of guilt in criminal proceedings (plea bargaining) was held to be persuasive data. * Deductions (Insurance): Following the Supreme Court’s rulings in *P. Chandramouli* and *Sebastiani Lakra*, the Court held that benefits received under an Employer-Provided Group Accident Insurance Scheme are not "pecuniary advantages" and cannot be deducted from the statutory compensation. * Income Assessment: * Transport Allowance: Included in the benchmark income, as per *Indira Srivastava* and *Meenakshi*, holding that perks beneficial to the family are part of "income." * Income Tax: The Court rejected further deductions, noting that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) already accounted for the tax liability; additional deduction would constitute double taxation. * Future Prospects: Modified from 50% to 40% as the deceased was a private-sector employee without a "permanent" job proof, aligning with *Pranay Sethi*. * Interest: Enhanced from 7.5% to 8.5% per annum, matching the prevailing RBI fixed deposit rates for the year 2011.. G C Agarwal & Ors vs Somveer Pal & Ors (Relinace General Insurance Co Ltd). Delhi High Court. LawLens

Delhi High Court·

Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawInsurance Law

### Non-Deductibility of Group Insurance Benefits and Inclusion of Transport Allowance in Motor Accident Compensation Case Brief: * Negligence: The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence against the offending vehicle based on the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur* and the preponderance of probabilities. The driver’s admission of guilt in criminal proceedings (plea bargaining) was held to be persuasive data. * Deductions (Insurance): Following the Supreme Court’s rulings in *P. Chandramouli* and *Sebastiani Lakra*, the Court held that benefits received under an Employer-Provided Group Accident Insurance Scheme are not "pecuniary advantages" and cannot be deducted from the statutory compensation. * Income Assessment: * Transport Allowance: Included in the benchmark income, as per *Indira Srivastava* and *Meenakshi*, holding that perks beneficial to the family are part of "income." * Income Tax: The Court rejected further deductions, noting that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) already accounted for the tax liability; additional deduction would constitute double taxation. * Future Prospects: Modified from 50% to 40% as the deceased was a private-sector employee without a "permanent" job proof, aligning with *Pranay Sethi*. * Interest: Enhanced from 7.5% to 8.5% per annum, matching the prevailing RBI fixed deposit rates for the year 2011.

On June 17, 2011, Ms. Iti Aggarwal (deceased), a 27-year-old IT Consultant, died in a motor accident involving a Tata Ace vehicle near Naraina flyover

3 MIN READ

Corroborated Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient for Murder Conviction Despite Absence of Motive or Independent Witnesses Summary: 1. Facts: A Delhi Police Constable was found murdered near Rajokri Pahari. During the spot investigation, the appellant's (Kuldeep) Election ID card was recovered near the body. Subsequent investigation led to the recovery of the deceased's scooter, the weapon of offence (a country-made pistol), and blood-stained clothes from the residence of a co-accused (Ishwar) at Kuldeep’s instance. Ballistic reports linked the weapon to an empty cartridge found at the scene. Ishwar was charged with harbouring the offenders. 2. Issues: * Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to sustain Kuldeep’s conviction for murder. * Whether the absence of motive and independent recovery witnesses vitiated the trial. * Whether the conviction of Ishwar under Section 212 IPC was sustainable without proof of actual "harbouring" of the person. 3. Ruling: * Conviction of Kuldeep Affirmed: The Court held that the recovery of the ID card at the scene, combined with the Section 27 Evidence Act recoveries (weapon and victim's property), created an unbroken chain of guilt. The Court clarified that in cases of strong circumstantial evidence, the absence of a proven motive is not fatal. * Acquittal of Ishwar: The Court set aside Ishwar’s conviction under Section 212 IPC. It ruled that since the principal offenders were not arrested from his house and there was no evidence he provided physical shelter (harbouring) to the persons, the ingredients of Section 212 were not met. The Court noted that while his actions might have attracted Section 201 IPC (screening evidence), he could not be convicted for it as no such charge was framed and it carried a higher penalty. 4. Key Principle: In circumstantial evidence cases, the cumulative effect of forensic linkages, recovery of the victim's property, and presence of accused's identification at the scene outweighs the absence of a proven motive. Section 212 IPC requires proof of physical harbouring of the *offender*, not merely the concealment of incriminating *objects*.. Kuldeep @ Kallu vs State. Delhi High Court. LawLens

Delhi High Court·

Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Corroborated Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient for Murder Conviction Despite Absence of Motive or Independent Witnesses Summary: 1. Facts: A Delhi Police Constable was found murdered near Rajokri Pahari. During the spot investigation, the appellant's (Kuldeep) Election ID card was recovered near the body. Subsequent investigation led to the recovery of the deceased's scooter, the weapon of offence (a country-made pistol), and blood-stained clothes from the residence of a co-accused (Ishwar) at Kuldeep’s instance. Ballistic reports linked the weapon to an empty cartridge found at the scene. Ishwar was charged with harbouring the offenders. 2. Issues: * Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to sustain Kuldeep’s conviction for murder. * Whether the absence of motive and independent recovery witnesses vitiated the trial. * Whether the conviction of Ishwar under Section 212 IPC was sustainable without proof of actual "harbouring" of the person. 3. Ruling: * Conviction of Kuldeep Affirmed: The Court held that the recovery of the ID card at the scene, combined with the Section 27 Evidence Act recoveries (weapon and victim's property), created an unbroken chain of guilt. The Court clarified that in cases of strong circumstantial evidence, the absence of a proven motive is not fatal. * Acquittal of Ishwar: The Court set aside Ishwar’s conviction under Section 212 IPC. It ruled that since the principal offenders were not arrested from his house and there was no evidence he provided physical shelter (harbouring) to the persons, the ingredients of Section 212 were not met. The Court noted that while his actions might have attracted Section 201 IPC (screening evidence), he could not be convicted for it as no such charge was framed and it carried a higher penalty. 4. Key Principle: In circumstantial evidence cases, the cumulative effect of forensic linkages, recovery of the victim's property, and presence of accused's identification at the scene outweighs the absence of a proven motive. Section 212 IPC requires proof of physical harbouring of the *offender*, not merely the concealment of incriminating *objects*.

On March 27, 1999, the body of Constable Rambir was found in a pit near Rajokri Pahari with gunshot and blunt force injuries.

2 MIN READ

### Non-Payment of Compensation Following Expiry of Requisition under 1948 Act Mandates Fresh Acquisition under 2013 Act Summary of the Judgment: The High Court at Calcutta addressed a dispute where the State of West Bengal had requisitioned the petitioner’s land in 1978 under the *West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948*, but failed to finalize the acquisition or pay compensation before the Act expired in 1997. The State also failed to issue a notice under Section 9(3A) of the *Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997*, to revive the proceedings under the 1894 Act. The Court rejected the State's plea of "delay and laches," invoking Supreme Court precedents like *Vidya Devi* and *Sukh Dutt Ratra*. It held that the deprivation of property without legal sanction constitutes a "continuing cause of action" and shocks the judicial conscience, precluding the State from using delay as a shield against the constitutional mandate of Article 300A. Crucially, the Court ruled that since no valid acquisition proceedings were pending under the 1894 Act at the time of its repeal, the State cannot now utilize the 1894 Act. Consequently, the State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings specifically under the *Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013*, to determine and pay fair compensation to the petitioner.. BIJOY KRISHNA BERA @ BIJOY BERA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.. Calcutta High Court. LawLens

Calcutta High Court·

Property and Real Estate LawConstitutional Law

### Non-Payment of Compensation Following Expiry of Requisition under 1948 Act Mandates Fresh Acquisition under 2013 Act Summary of the Judgment: The High Court at Calcutta addressed a dispute where the State of West Bengal had requisitioned the petitioner’s land in 1978 under the *West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948*, but failed to finalize the acquisition or pay compensation before the Act expired in 1997. The State also failed to issue a notice under Section 9(3A) of the *Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997*, to revive the proceedings under the 1894 Act. The Court rejected the State's plea of "delay and laches," invoking Supreme Court precedents like *Vidya Devi* and *Sukh Dutt Ratra*. It held that the deprivation of property without legal sanction constitutes a "continuing cause of action" and shocks the judicial conscience, precluding the State from using delay as a shield against the constitutional mandate of Article 300A. Crucially, the Court ruled that since no valid acquisition proceedings were pending under the 1894 Act at the time of its repeal, the State cannot now utilize the 1894 Act. Consequently, the State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings specifically under the *Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013*, to determine and pay fair compensation to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the recorded owner of several plots in Mouza Bural, Paschim Medinipur.

2 MIN READ

### Power to Determine Additional Compensation for Uncovered Periods Rests with Competent Authority at First Instance Analysis: The Court held that a claim for compensation for a time duration not covered by a prior award is a fresh claim for additional compensation, not a "review" or "enhancement." Thus, the Competent Authority retains jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the 1962 Act to determine such compensation "at the first instance," and the doctrine of *functus officio* does not apply to these separate periods of loss.. SUBRATA HAIT vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ORS. Calcutta High Court. LawLens

Calcutta High Court·

Property and Real Estate LawAdministrative and Public Law

### Power to Determine Additional Compensation for Uncovered Periods Rests with Competent Authority at First Instance Analysis: The Court held that a claim for compensation for a time duration not covered by a prior award is a fresh claim for additional compensation, not a "review" or "enhancement." Thus, the Competent Authority retains jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the 1962 Act to determine such compensation "at the first instance," and the doctrine of *functus officio* does not apply to these separate periods of loss.

The appellants (landowners/leaseholders) were affected by the laying of a pipeline by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).

2 MIN READ

### Admissibility of Section 50 PMLA Statements and Financial Trails Establish Sufficient Grounds for Framing Charges 1. Facts: The Petitioner, a partner in M/s Shiv Machine Tools, was accused of paying ₹94.42 Lakhs as illegal gratification to a MECON official to secure tenders for projects at Bokaro and Durgapur Steel Plants. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the bribe was layered through sham transactions, including ₹70 Lakhs routed as a "machinery advance" to a tile vendor (M/s Naskar Ceramics) and "friendly loans" to the official’s relatives. The Petitioner sought discharge, claiming these were bona fide business transactions and loan repayments. 2. Issues: * Whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed with framing charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. * Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge petition by refusing to consider the Petitioner’s defense at the preliminary stage. 3. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the revisions, upholding the trial court’s orders. It ruled that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to determine if a *prima facie* case of "grave suspicion" exists based on the prosecution's material. The Court held that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible evidence and deemed judicial proceedings, creating a formidable case when supported by bank trails. 4. Key Takeaways: * Admissibility of Statements: Confessions or statements recorded by ED officials under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by the bar of Article 20(3) and are admissible as substantive evidence for framing charges. * Scope of Discharge: A "mini-trial" is impermissible at the discharge stage; the court must assume prosecution materials are true and need not consider the accused's defense or documents unless they are of "sterling quality." * Layering as Offence: The use of banking channels to structure bribes as "loans" or "advances" through intermediary entities squarely meets the definition of laundering under Section 3 PMLA. * Standalone Offence: Money laundering is an independent offence; procedural regularity in the underlying tender process does not legitimize the illegal movement of proceeds of crime.. HITESH V. SHAH vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. Jharkhand High Court. LawLens

Jharkhand High Court·

Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

### Admissibility of Section 50 PMLA Statements and Financial Trails Establish Sufficient Grounds for Framing Charges 1. Facts: The Petitioner, a partner in M/s Shiv Machine Tools, was accused of paying ₹94.42 Lakhs as illegal gratification to a MECON official to secure tenders for projects at Bokaro and Durgapur Steel Plants. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the bribe was layered through sham transactions, including ₹70 Lakhs routed as a "machinery advance" to a tile vendor (M/s Naskar Ceramics) and "friendly loans" to the official’s relatives. The Petitioner sought discharge, claiming these were bona fide business transactions and loan repayments. 2. Issues: * Whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed with framing charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. * Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge petition by refusing to consider the Petitioner’s defense at the preliminary stage. 3. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the revisions, upholding the trial court’s orders. It ruled that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to determine if a *prima facie* case of "grave suspicion" exists based on the prosecution's material. The Court held that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible evidence and deemed judicial proceedings, creating a formidable case when supported by bank trails. 4. Key Takeaways: * Admissibility of Statements: Confessions or statements recorded by ED officials under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by the bar of Article 20(3) and are admissible as substantive evidence for framing charges. * Scope of Discharge: A "mini-trial" is impermissible at the discharge stage; the court must assume prosecution materials are true and need not consider the accused's defense or documents unless they are of "sterling quality." * Layering as Offence: The use of banking channels to structure bribes as "loans" or "advances" through intermediary entities squarely meets the definition of laundering under Section 3 PMLA. * Standalone Offence: Money laundering is an independent offence; procedural regularity in the underlying tender process does not legitimize the illegal movement of proceeds of crime.

The petitioner, a partner in M/s Shiv Machine Tools, was implicated in a CBI FIR (2017) alleging a criminal conspiracy with a Senior Manager at MECON India Ltd (U.N. Mandal) to secure tenders at the Bokaro Steel Plant...

2 MIN READ

LMV License Holder Can Drive Transport Vehicle Under 7500 KG Without Additional Endorsement Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. Relying on the Supreme Court's constitution bench ruling in *Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2025)*, the Court held that a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg is legally permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without a specific additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY vs POOJA. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens

Uttarakhand High Court·

Insurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

LMV License Holder Can Drive Transport Vehicle Under 7500 KG Without Additional Endorsement Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. Relying on the Supreme Court's constitution bench ruling in *Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2025)*, the Court held that a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg is legally permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without a specific additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claimants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed a claim petition following a motor accident on October 21, 2022, where a truck (UK-07 CB-2424) hit a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Ravindra and injuries to Pooja

2 MIN READ

### Natural Justice and the Power to Condonate Must Be Read Into Rule 7(2) of the 2024 Prison Rules. Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) addressed a challenge by a life convict whose furlough application was rejected due to a 370-day overstay. The Court scrutinized Rule 7(2) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which mandates fixed periods of ineligibility for prisoners who fail to surrender on time. The Court held that the mechanical application of Rule 7(2) without providing the prisoner an opportunity to explain the delay—and without the authority's power to reduce or waive the ineligibility period for "sufficient cause"—violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Drawing on established precedents (*Sunil Batra*, *Asfaq*, and *Kanitlal Nandlal Jaiswal*), the Court emphasized that furlough is a reformative measure aimed at maintaining family ties and human dignity. Consequently, the Court ruled that Section 48-A of the Prisons Act, 1894, which requires a show-cause notice and consideration of the prisoner's explanation, must be read into Rule 7(2). The impugned order of the DIG and the order of permanent forfeiture of remission were quashed because the petitioner’s explanation (concerning his father’s illness and death) was ignored. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after a fair hearing.. Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari vs State Of Maharashtra. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Criminal LawConstitutional Law

### Natural Justice and the Power to Condonate Must Be Read Into Rule 7(2) of the 2024 Prison Rules. Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) addressed a challenge by a life convict whose furlough application was rejected due to a 370-day overstay. The Court scrutinized Rule 7(2) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which mandates fixed periods of ineligibility for prisoners who fail to surrender on time. The Court held that the mechanical application of Rule 7(2) without providing the prisoner an opportunity to explain the delay—and without the authority's power to reduce or waive the ineligibility period for "sufficient cause"—violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Drawing on established precedents (*Sunil Batra*, *Asfaq*, and *Kanitlal Nandlal Jaiswal*), the Court emphasized that furlough is a reformative measure aimed at maintaining family ties and human dignity. Consequently, the Court ruled that Section 48-A of the Prisons Act, 1894, which requires a show-cause notice and consideration of the prisoner's explanation, must be read into Rule 7(2). The impugned order of the DIG and the order of permanent forfeiture of remission were quashed because the petitioner’s explanation (concerning his father’s illness and death) was ignored. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after a fair hearing.

The Petitioner, convicted under Sections 302, 307, and 452 of the IPC, was originally awarded a death sentence, which the Supreme Court later commuted to 25 years of actual imprisonment.

3 MIN READ

### Head: Maintainability of Representative Suit by Society Office Bearers and Validity of Simplified Majority in No-Confidence Motions Summary: The High Court of Karnataka set aside interim injunctions granted in favor of the erstwhile office bearers of a registered society. The Court held that a suit filed by a society without a specific executive committee resolution as mandated by Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act is prima facie non-maintainable. Furthermore, it ruled that in the absence of specific byelaws, office bearers may be removed via a no-confidence motion using the same simple majority procedure by which they were elected. The Court also invalidated unilateral suspension orders issued against committee members without following principles of natural justice and prescribed byelaw procedures.. SRI G T KUMAR vs MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. Karnataka High Court. LawLens

Karnataka High Court·

Commercial and Corporate LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

### Head: Maintainability of Representative Suit by Society Office Bearers and Validity of Simplified Majority in No-Confidence Motions Summary: The High Court of Karnataka set aside interim injunctions granted in favor of the erstwhile office bearers of a registered society. The Court held that a suit filed by a society without a specific executive committee resolution as mandated by Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act is prima facie non-maintainable. Furthermore, it ruled that in the absence of specific byelaws, office bearers may be removed via a no-confidence motion using the same simple majority procedure by which they were elected. The Court also invalidated unilateral suspension orders issued against committee members without following principles of natural justice and prescribed byelaw procedures.

The Malnad Technical Education Society (R) is a registered society governed by the Karnataka Societies Registration (KSR) Act, 1960.

3 MIN READ

### Registration under PCPNDT Act is Equipment-Specific; Deemed Renewal of Clinic Registration Does Not Authorize New Machine Installation. Summary: The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of charges under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act. The petitioners, employees of a medical technology company, supplied an ultrasound machine ("BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE") to a hospital that held an expired registration for a different model ("SONOTECH ST9"). The Court held that registration under the PCPNDT Act is equipment-specific, not institution-centric. Referring to Rule 13 and Forms A & B, the Court clarified that any change in equipment must be specifically authorized by the Appropriate Authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the "deemed renewal" of a clinic’s registration under Rule 8(6) applies only to existing authorized equipment and cannot be stretched to legalize the installation of a new, unregistered machine. Since the petitioners were experienced suppliers, the plea of lack of *mens rea* was rejected, affirming their statutory obligation to ensure valid, machine-specific registration prior to supply.. Sanjay Sinha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens

Madhya Pradesh High Court·

Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

### Registration under PCPNDT Act is Equipment-Specific; Deemed Renewal of Clinic Registration Does Not Authorize New Machine Installation. Summary: The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of charges under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act. The petitioners, employees of a medical technology company, supplied an ultrasound machine ("BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE") to a hospital that held an expired registration for a different model ("SONOTECH ST9"). The Court held that registration under the PCPNDT Act is equipment-specific, not institution-centric. Referring to Rule 13 and Forms A & B, the Court clarified that any change in equipment must be specifically authorized by the Appropriate Authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the "deemed renewal" of a clinic’s registration under Rule 8(6) applies only to existing authorized equipment and cannot be stretched to legalize the installation of a new, unregistered machine. Since the petitioners were experienced suppliers, the plea of lack of *mens rea* was rejected, affirming their statutory obligation to ensure valid, machine-specific registration prior to supply.

The petitioners, employees of BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., supplied a “BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE” ultrasound machine to Karuna Hospital, Betul, following a purchase order dated July 29, 2021

2 MIN READ

Deemed extension under Section 8A(6) of MMDR Act requires a valid, complete renewal application and compliance with lease terms. Summary: The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a 50-year deemed extension of a mining lease under Section 8A(6) of the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015. The court held that the benefit of deemed extension is not automatic; it is strictly conditional upon the filing of a valid renewal application and the performance of all lease obligations. In this case, the petitioner had filed a defective second renewal application in 1998, failing to submit essential documents like a mining plan and environment clearance until years after the 2015 Amendment. Consequently, the application was non-existent in the eyes of the law, and the petitioner was ineligible for the statutory extension.. Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others. Allahabad High Court. LawLens

Allahabad High Court·

Environmental LawAdministrative and Public Law

Deemed extension under Section 8A(6) of MMDR Act requires a valid, complete renewal application and compliance with lease terms. Summary: The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a 50-year deemed extension of a mining lease under Section 8A(6) of the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015. The court held that the benefit of deemed extension is not automatic; it is strictly conditional upon the filing of a valid renewal application and the performance of all lease obligations. In this case, the petitioner had filed a defective second renewal application in 1998, failing to submit essential documents like a mining plan and environment clearance until years after the 2015 Amendment. Consequently, the application was non-existent in the eyes of the law, and the petitioner was ineligible for the statutory extension.

The petitioner’s predecessor was granted a mining lease for Silica Sand in 1979 for ten years

3 MIN READ

JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE: BINDING NATURE OF JUDGMENTS IN REM AND OBLIGATION TO EXTEND PARITY TO SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES State must extend benefits of judgments in rem to all similarly situated employees without forcing individual litigation.. Shri Debasish Narayan Bose And Ors vs Sh Rajesh Kumar Singh, The Defence Secretary. Delhi High Court. LawLens

Delhi High Court·

Employment and Labour LawConstitutional Law

JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE: BINDING NATURE OF JUDGMENTS IN REM AND OBLIGATION TO EXTEND PARITY TO SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES State must extend benefits of judgments in rem to all similarly situated employees without forcing individual litigation.

The Petitioners, Assistants and Personal Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) Headquarters, filed contempt petitions alleging willful disobedience of a judgment dated 14.10.201...

3 MIN READ