This compilation indexes 12 Indian court rulings decided between April 2026 and September 2026 in which Section 15 of one or more statutes was a cited provision. The cases span the Supreme Court of India and multiple High Courts — Patna, Allahabad, Bombay, Gauhati, and Karnataka — and arise under diverse legislative frameworks including the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and land acquisition legislation. This index is intended for legal researchers, in-house counsel, and litigation support teams who need a quick-reference map of recent judicial activity around Section 15 citations across Indian courts.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled for research purposes. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Readers must verify all rulings against full judgments and consult qualified counsel before acting on any information here.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

"Section 15" is not a single provision — it appears in dozens of Indian statutes, each with its own scope and effect. In this compilation, the section number is cited across at least six distinct legislative frameworks: the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 (which deals with proceedings relating to property attachment and release), the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (which provides an appellate mechanism before the Appellate Authority), the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and associated rules (concerning royalty and lease conditions), the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 (dealing with tax assessment and revision), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (governing employer and institutional obligations), and land acquisition legislation (prescribing the hearing of objections). Researchers should always identify the specific statute under which Section 15 is invoked before drawing analogies across cases in this index.

The 12 rulings

1. Shashi Kumar @ Fukan vs The State Of Bihar Through Its The

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 11 September 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case (No. 3363 of 2025) before the Patna High Court. Per the source preview, the writ application was preferred for quashing the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, in B.C.C.A. Case No. 178 of 2025 and B.C.C.A. Case No. 182 of 2025. The full reasoning and operative order are not available in the source preview.

2. Navi Mohmad vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 3 September 2026
Sections engaged: 14(1), 15(1), 16(1), 3(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Criminal Appeal (No. 5078 of 2026) was filed before the Allahabad High Court against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99/2024. Per the source preview, the reference before the Special Judge arose under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and concerned orders of property attachment passed under the relevant provisions of that Act, as well as an order dismissing the appellant's representation against the attachment. The substantive findings and final operative order are not available in the source preview.

3. Amarjeet Chauhan vs State Of U.P

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 21 August 2026
Sections engaged: 15, 16
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 8481 of 2025) was filed before the Allahabad High Court under the Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 2025, as well as orders dated 15.02.2025 and 13.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. Per the source preview, the appellant's counsel submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and the position of law. The full reasoning and operative order are not available in the source preview.

4. Kishor Dnyanoba Gaikwad vs Additional Collector And Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 21 August 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition No. 9856 of 2019) was instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging the order dated 27 June 2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune, in Appeal No. 6 of 2019. Per the source preview, the appeal before the Additional Collector had been preferred by the respondents under Section 15 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Additional Collector's order quashed and set aside the order dated 8 February 2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pune. The full reasoning and operative order in the writ petition are not available in the source preview.

5. Assam Tea Empolyees Provident Fund vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 14 August 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (WA/250/2026) was filed before the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh). Per the source preview, the appellants include the Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation and associated officers, and the respondents include the State of Assam, Balimara Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Umatara Tea Company. The substantive issues, findings, and operative order are not available in the source preview beyond the identification of parties.

6. M/S J M Construction Company vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 202169 of 2026, T-RES) was filed before the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench. Per the source preview, the petitioner is M/S J M Construction Company, Bidar, and the respondents include the State of Karnataka Department of Finance, Belgavi Smart City Ltd., Hubballi Dharwad Smart City Limited, the Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board, and the Chief Engineers of the Karnataka Slum Development Board and Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Development Board. The substantive grounds and operative order are not available in the source preview.

7. The State Of Haryana vs M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 13 July 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These two civil appeals before the Supreme Court of India (citation: 2026 INSC 690, arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 15252 of 2017 and SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30225 of 2017) required the Court to interpret relevant clauses of mining lease deeds, read with the applicable statutory provisions and rules, in the context of the lessor State's power to increase the rate of royalty and dead rent during the subsistence of the lease. Per the source preview, the lease deeds executed between the State and the lessees contained no express provision permitting such increase, and the Court noted the relevance of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The full reasoning and operative order are not available in the source preview beyond this framing.

8. Dr.(Smt) Anagha Bhupendra Kothadia And vs Mr.Motiram Govind Budhwani And Anr

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 10 July 2026
Sections engaged: 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (First Appeal No. 552 of 2014) was filed before the Bombay High Court in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. Per the source preview, the appellants are identified as claimants in the original proceedings, and the preview contains tabulated figures relating to income, future prospects, personal deduction, and a resulting compensation figure. The full substantive reasoning and operative order are not available in the source preview beyond this financial tabulation.

9. M/S India Heritage Foundation vs The State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 14, 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Sales Tax Revision Petition (STRP No. 29 of 2023) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, against the judgment dated 4.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 222. Per the source preview, that tribunal judgment partly allowed the appeal filed against an order dated 30.04.2019 passed in VAT.AP.70/2018-19 (A.Y. 2005-06) by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-3), Bengaluru, which had partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 16.03.2009 passed under the KVAT Act, 2003 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-31), Bengaluru, for the tax period of 2005-06. The final operative order in the revision petition is not available in the source preview.

10. Akash Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 14(1), 16(1), 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Criminal Appeal (No. 1513 of 2026) was filed before the Allahabad High Court under the Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Per the source preview, the appellant sought quashing of the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Sonebhadra, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 155 of 2021 (State vs. Aakash Kumar Maurya), as well as the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, in Case No. 03625 of 2020. The appellant's counsel submitted that the impugned orders are against facts, per the source preview; the full reasoning and operative order are not available in the source preview.

11. Psbb Learning Leadership Academy vs Mrs.Barnali Rout

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 1 June 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 11, 12, 15, 60
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 11351 of 2020, GM-RES) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned order. Per the source preview, the petitioner is PSBB Learning Leadership Academy, Bangalore, and the respondents include Mrs. Barnali Rout and the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Karnataka. The substantive grounds and operative order are not available in the source preview beyond the identification of parties and the relief sought.

12. Vijay Pal Singh And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 28 April 2026
Sections engaged: 15, 19
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ-C No. 41339 of 2025, along with connected matters Writ-C No. 41467 of 2025 and Writ-C No. 46238 of 2025) was decided by the Allahabad High Court, with judgment reserved on 08.04.2026 and delivered on 28.04.2026. Per the source preview, the judgment's structured index indicates that the court examined, among other things, compliance with the hearing of objections procedure, with one section of the judgment specifically identified as "Hearing Of Objections Under Section 15 Procedure Followed." The substantive findings and operative directions are not available in full from the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 15 is a procedural anchor across multiple statutes. Across this compilation, Section 15 functions as a procedural provision in nearly every statute involved — governing appeals (Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act), property attachment proceedings (U.P. Gangsters Act), hearing of objections (land acquisition legislation), and revision petitions (KVAT Act). This cross-statutory appearance of Section 15 as a procedural gateway is the most consistent pattern in this set.
Property attachment under the U.P. Gangsters Act generates recurring appellate activity. Cases 2 (Navi Mohmad), 3 (Amarjeet Chauhan), and 10 (Akash Kumar Maurya) all arise from the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, with Section 15 cited alongside provisions governing attachment and reference to the Special Judge. This indicates a recurring pattern of appellants challenging attachment orders at the High Court level under this statute.
Karnataka High Court is an active forum for Section 15 citations in commercial and disability matters. Cases 6 (J M Construction Company), 9 (India Heritage Foundation), and 11 (Psbb Learning Leadership Academy) all come from the Karnataka High Court and span construction/government contract disputes, a KVAT sales tax revision, and a disability rights matter — reflecting the breadth of legislative contexts in which Section 15 arises before that court.
Outcome data is uniformly absent from the source previews. All 12 cases carry the outcome direction "Outcome not specified in source," which indicates that the source previews available are limited to case headers, party listings, and early paragraphs of the judgments. Researchers should treat this compilation as an identification and indexing tool only, and must retrieve full judgments to ascertain operative orders and findings.
The Supreme Court ruling (Case 7) raises a distinct statutory interpretation question. The State of Haryana vs M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals is the only Supreme Court matter in this set and concerns interpretation of mining lease deed clauses in the context of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — a substantively distinct issue from the procedural Section 15 citations in the other 11 cases. Researchers focused on minerals or royalty disputes should treat this case separately.

How to use this compilation

This index is organised to help legal researchers quickly identify whether a given court, statute, or procedural context involving Section 15 has generated recent judicial activity. To use it effectively, begin by identifying the specific statute under which your Section 15 question arises, then filter the cases above by the "Sections engaged" field and the court. Because Section 15 appears in many different Indian laws, cross-referencing the statute — not merely the section number — is essential before drawing any analogy from one case to another.

Once you have identified potentially relevant entries, retrieve the full judgment text from indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court portal, or the Supreme Court of India's official website. The source previews in this compilation are limited to early paragraphs and party listings; operative holdings, ratio decidendi, and any subsequent stays or appeals will only be visible in the complete judgment. Always check whether a judgment cited here has been stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a subsequent order before relying on it in any research memorandum or legal submission.

Finally, where a case intersects with a regulatory framework — such as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, or the U.P. Gangsters Act — verify whether parallel executive instructions, CBDT/CBIC circulars, or state government notifications have modified the statutory position since the judgment date. Court rulings and executive instructions can interact in ways that affect how a provision is applied in practice, and this compilation does not track those developments.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 15 Across Indian Courts: 12 Rulings Compiled (2026)