The Rajasthan High Court held that a DVD and pen drive of CCTV footage filed with the charge-sheet are documents that must be supplied to the accused under Section 207 CrPC. It quashed a Hindaun City trial court order of 31 July 2023 rejecting the accused's application for them (paras 3, 19). The trial court must supply a cloned copy forthwith; where the privacy of a victim or witness is involved, inspection alone may be allowed (paras 18, 20).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell farmland, holding that the trial court ordered newspaper publication without the satisfaction Order V Rule 20 of the CPC requires, though the process server had reported that the defendant lived in a named Jaipur colony. Publication alone is not effective service (paras 4.7-5.5, 6.4-7).
A three-judge Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, answering a reference made in 2003, held that widows of railway casual labourers with temporary status who died before appointment to a temporary post are not entitled to pension. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chanda Devi and Rule 1501 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, it upheld the earlier Somati Dai view and dismissed the writ petitions (paras 1, 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed revisions by two former Panchayat Samiti members against charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for forgery and conspiracy over alleged embezzlement in rural poverty schemes. At the charge stage the court takes the prosecution material at face value; a mini-trial or an assessment of its truth is not permitted (paras 1, 10-12, 17-20).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a GST show cause notice and an adjudication order bearing neither a digital nor a physical signature are non est under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, rejecting the department's plea that an officer's digitally authenticated portal login is enough. It quashed the notice and order behind a demand of Rs 11,76,97,600, the Section 79 recovery notice and the bank attachment (paras 6, 16-17.1, 23-24).
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recalled its earlier order imposing costs of ₹5,000 on the Superintendent of Police, Mewat, after finding the order rested on a factual error — the State had in fact attempted to file its reply on the very date the Court had recorded it as failing to do so.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by P B Agro LLP, master licensee of the "VIMAL" brand, against a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, to its brand ambassadors, holding that no substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi (paras 1, 42-44). Maharashtra's courts were also the more convenient forum; the merits were left open (paras 43-44).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court headed by the Chief Justice dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition that sought statewide enforcement of the rules on installing and immersing Vinayagar idols, after the petitioner asked to withdraw it (paras 1-2). The petitioner was given liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, with no order as to costs (para 2). The written order gives no other reasons.
Madras High Court declines to stay Tamil Nadu's move to a fully digital system for driving licences and vehicle registration certificates from September 13, issuing notice instead on a Bangalore firm's challenge to the transport department's communication.
The Bombay High Court disposed of two writ petitions against the Pune Collector and the Collector, State Excise, Pune after the State said, on instructions, that 25 September 2026 will be a ‘Dry Day’ and that the prohibition on retail liquor sale on 14 September 2026 will operate till 4.00 pm (paras 4, 6). The petitioner said its grievance was redressed and did not press the petition (para 5).
The Bombay High Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to the State machinery over an expected agitation in Mumbai by Respondent No. 4, but found that no situation had yet emerged calling for directions, as the petitioners' case rested on "past experience" (paras 3, 6-7). It expected any protest to comply with Rule 25 of the 2025 Rules and the State to handle any medical emergency of Respondent No. 4, who is on hunger strike (paras 6, 8).
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim bail from 11.09.2026 to 21.12.2026 to a 76-year-old accused in a money-laundering case linked to alleged drug smuggling, on medical grounds and after more than five years in custody (paras 21-24). The rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA, it held, cannot keep in prison a person so unfit that treatment inside becomes a mere formality (para 17).