Latest 10 AFR Judgements with Case Note |
|
| 1 |
NIRMAL KUMAR SAMUEL (Deleted) VS ATUL KUMAR SHUKLA
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15688]
Case Note : The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should
exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial
mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties.
Case No : MA/155/2025
Date of Judgement : 07.04.2026
|
| 2 |
SANTOSH @ GOLU SRIVAS VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15519-DB]
Case Note : 21
Head – Note
Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring
confidence of the Court, then the same can be relied upon and can be
the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.
Case No : CRA/206/2022
Date of Judgement : 06.04.2026
|
| 3 |
CBI - CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS AMIT JOGI
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15302-DB]
Case Note : Head Note
An artificial distinction cannot be drawn in favour of a particular accused when
all are charged with participation in a common offence. Where the prosecution
case rests on the same set of evidence against all accused, it would be
impermissible to acquit one accused while convicting the others on that very
evidence, unless a strong and compelling case for acquittal is independently
made out in favour of such accused.
Case No : ACQA/66/2026
Date of Judgement : 02.04.2026
|
| 4 |
KAUSHIK BEHRA VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15338]
Case Note : Misconduct involving indiscipline and repeated unauthorized absence
constitutes a serious breach of service discipline and justifies the
imposition of strict penalties by the disciplinary authority. The courts
ought not to lightly interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is
shown to be shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by procedural
irregularity, mala fides, or violation of principles of natural justice.
Case No : WPS/1488/2023
Date of Judgement : 02.04.2026
|
| 5 |
ACHINTA BHOWMIK VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15337]
Case Note : Mere participation in the examination does not confer any vested or
indefeasible right to appointment or even to declaration of result. The
State is competent to cancel a recruitment process prior to its
culmination if found inconsistent with statutory provisions, in order to
prevent perpetuation of illegality. The doctrine that “rules of the game
cannot be changed after commencement” is inapplicable where the
change is necessitated to ensure conformity with binding statutory
rules.
Case No : WPS/7387/2022
Date of Judgement : 02.04.2026
|
| 6 |
LAKHAN BIHARI PATEL VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:15026]
Case Note : Courts, though not expert medical bodies, are empowered to judicially
review the decision-making process to ensure that it is fair, transparent,
and in accordance with established legal principles; however, in
matters requiring medical expertise, they must accord due deference
to, and ultimately rely upon, the opinion rendered by the Disability
Assessment Board as the competent authority.
Case No : WPC/2241/2020
Date of Judgement : 01.04.2026
|
| 7 |
M. R. MALIK (Died) Through Lrs. VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:14691]
Case Note : 30
HEAD NOTE
To establish a charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must prove the
existence of an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more persons to
commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Such an agreement must
be established either by direct evidence or by circumstances which unerringly
point towards a common design.
Case No : CRA/130/2002
Date of Judgement : 30.03.2026
|
| 8 |
M/S KEDIA TRADING VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:14468-DB]
Case Note : Any Rules/Legislation framed cannot enlarge the scope of its parent
statute and cannot travel beyond the Preamble or the object for which
the said Rules/Legislation is framed
Case No : WPC/3580/2022
Date of Judgement : 27.03.2026
|
| 9 |
SMT. BIRJA ZENA VS YASHRAJ MEHRA
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:14528]
Case Note : Head Note:
“Without impleading firm or issuing notice to the firm, the complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
maintainable against the partner of the firm.”
Case No : CRR/1367/2025
Date of Judgement : 27.03.2026
|
| 10 |
BHOJRAM VS GENERAL MANAGER ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY JAMUL
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:14531]
Case Note : 13
Head Note
The plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only,
where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law. ‘Law’ within the meaning of Order 7 Rule
11(d) of the CPC must include the law of limitation as well.
Case No : SA/502/2023
Date of Judgement : 27.03.2026
|