Civil Appeal Nos. Of 2026 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 33646 – 33647, 33648 – 33649 of 2018]
Parties: Kumud Lall & Another Versus Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Advocates: For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondent: ------
Head Note:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13(7) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXII Rules 2, 4, 11 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 306 – Medical Negligence – Survival of Cause of Action – Legal Representatives – Appeals – Question whether legal heirs of deceased doctor can be impleaded and held liable for alleged medical negligence during pendency of proceedings at appellate stage.
Court Held &nd...
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1088, 1133 of 2026)
Parties: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Advocates: For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: -----
Head Note:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 173(1), 173(4), 175(3) – Registration of FIR – Alternative Remedy – Writ Jurisdiction – Quashment – Appeals – Challenge to High Court interim order directing police to record statement and initiate action, pursuant to which FIR came to be registered in commercial dispute involving allegations of forgery and impersonation.
Court ...
Criminal Petition No. 9255 of 2024
Parties: Akshay S. Naik Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad & Another
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
Advocates: For the Petitioner: C. Radha Sri, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Head Note:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 -
...
C.M.A. No. 715 of 2005
Parties: M/s. Ashok Kumar Rakesh Kumar Versus M/s. Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Advocates: For the Petitioner: T. Surya Satish, Advocate. For the Respondent: The Advocate General.
Head Note:
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 -
...
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017
Parties: Kala Mines & Minerals, A registered partnership concern through its Partner, Bipinchandra S. Kantak @ Bipin S. Kantak, Margao, Goa Versus M.V. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor of Business India Inc., Bangalore & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHISH S. CHAVAN
Advocates: For the Appellant: Ajit Kantak & Raunak Kantak, Advocates. For the Respondents: R3, S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor, R1 & R2, D. Vernekar & J. Velip, Advocates.
Head Note:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-GOA 974,
...
Interim Application No. 5241 of 2025 In Suit No. 250 of 2023
Parties: Sugandha Hiremath & Another Versus Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL
Advocates: For the Plaintiffs: Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Counsel a/w. Kunal Dwarkadas, Counsel, Rahul Dwarkadas, Sukhada Wagle, Shireen Mistri, Aniket Kharote i/b. RJD & Partners, Advocates. For the Defendants: D1, Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Simil Purohit, Senior Counsels, Farhan Khan, Munaf Virjee, Swapnil Khatri, Shruti Salian i/b. AMR Law, D2, D3 & D4, Yash Chokshi a/w. Taha Mirza, Kanika Sharma i/b. Khaitan & Co., D5 & D6, Prabhav Shroff a/w. Aditi Bhansali, Deepti Prabhu i/b. AZB & Partners, D7, Kavita Sharma a/w. Harsh Shah i/b. Ganesh & Co., Advocates.
Head Note:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 89 – Order VII Rule 11 – Order X Rule 1-A – Mediation Act, 2023 – Section 5 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12-A – Family Dispute – Court Referred Mediation – Interim Application – Mediation request rejected – Plaintiffs sought reference of family dispute relating to specific performance of family arrangement to mediation despite objection by Defendant No.1 &nd...
Writ Petition No. 10909 of 2026
Parties: R.P. Kousalya Versus The State Of AP, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Rural Development Department, Amaravati & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Advocates: For the Petitioner: P. Padmavathi, learned Counsel. For the Respondents: M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue & Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel.
Head Note:
Subject
...
Writ Petition Nos. 3355 & 3465 of 2020
Parties: Mahendra & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mumbai & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.S. JAWALKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANDESH S. DESHPANDE
Advocates: For the Petitioners: A.S. Mardikar, Senior Counsel, assisted by S.D. Borkute, Counsel. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, R3 & R4, D.M. Kale, holding for Usha Gujar, Advocates.
Head Note:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 79 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-NAG 6901,
...
WPO. No. 780 of 2025
Parties: P.S. Srijan Height Developers Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata & Others
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Advocates: For the Petitioner: Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Advocate, Saumya Kejriwal, Ananya Rath, Navin Mittal, Debarghya Banerjee, Advocates. For the Respondents: Tarak Nath Jaiswal, Madhu Jana, Advocates.
Head Note:
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 CHC-OS 153,
...
Income Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2024
Parties: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Versus Impact Foundation (India)
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. KULKARNI & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE AARTI SATHE
Advocates: For the Appellant: Pritish Chatterjee, Advocate. For the Respondent: Dharmesh Shah a/w Dhaval Shah, Advocates.
Head Note:
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 11(2), 11(3), 12AA, 143(3), 263 – Explanation 2 to Section 263 – Revisionary Jurisdiction – Erroneous and Prejudicial Order – Charitable Institution – Appeal – Revenue challenged ITAT order setting aside revisional proceedings initiated under Section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer failed to verify utilization of accumulated charitable funds of Rs.6 crores claimed under Section 11(2).
Court H...