This compilation indexes 12 High Court rulings pronounced between 1 September 2026 and 15 September 2026 in which Section 19 was among the statutory provisions cited. The cases span a wide range of legal contexts — including appeals under the Family Courts Act, 1984; a writ challenging arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; a civil revision under the MSMED Act; an arbitration enforcement matter; a bail application under the NDPS Act; a criminal revision in a Prevention of Corruption Act matter; and a writ concerning service or statutory entitlements. The compilation is intended for legal researchers, in-house counsel, and practitioners who track judicial activity across provisions sharing the "Section 19" citation marker. Each entry records the forum, date, sections engaged, and outcome direction as extracted from the source data, followed by a brief procedural note drawn exclusively from the matching source preview.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool, not legal advice. Readers should verify all entries against the full text of the original judgment, check for subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

"Section 19" appears across multiple Indian statutes, each with a distinct operative effect. Under the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19 provides the right to appeal against orders of a Family Court to the High Court. Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Section 19 confers power on authorised officers to arrest a person believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act, subject to prescribed procedural safeguards. Under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), Section 19 regulates the pre-deposit condition for filing an application to set aside or modify an arbitral award passed by a Facilitation Council. Because "Section 19" is a cross-statute citation shared by proceedings in family law, economic offences, and commercial disputes, this compilation presents each ruling on its own terms and does not attempt to synthesise holdings across different legislative instruments.

The 12 rulings

1. Rahul Choubey vs Poonam Pathak

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 15 September 2026
Sections engaged: 13(1)(ia), 19, 7(1), 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Jharkhand High Court as F.A. No. 86 of 2022, heard on 25 August 2026 and pronounced on 15 September 2026. Per the source preview, the matter concerns a matrimonial dispute arising from a marriage solemnized on 21.11.2008 at Patna, Bihar, with the appellant-husband alleging that the respondent-wife had been pressing him to leave his parents and reside with her family; the appeal appears to be directed against a Family Court order, with the High Court examining issues touching on matrimonial conduct between the parties.

2. Sarikonda Sharath Chandra Raju vs Ms. Preethi Kauvakolanu

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 15 September 2026
Sections engaged: 13(1)(ia), 19, 27
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This memorandum of Family Court Appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in FCOP No. 684 of 2014, dated 11.09.2018. Per the source preview, the appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's award of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife on grounds that no reasoned basis was offered by the court, and that neither in the petition nor in evidence had the respondent-wife provided a stated foundation for the quantum claimed.

3. Sri Jayanta Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura

Bench: Tripura High Court
Date: 14 September 2026
Sections engaged: 19, 20(b), 47, 48, 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Tripura High Court as BA No. 166 of 2026, heard on 9 September 2026 and delivered on 14 September 2026. Per the source preview, this is a bail application filed in connection with Khowai P.S. case No. 2020 KHW 007 dated 13.02.2026, registered under the NDPS Act; the petition was presented by the father of one of the accused persons, both of whom were lodged in judicial custody at the time of filing.

4. Anoop Yadav vs Cbi, Acb, Chandigarh

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 14 September 2026
Sections engaged: 13(2), 173(2), 19, 227
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The present revision petition was preferred against the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Haryana at Panchkula in IA No. 4/2026 in case No. PC 08 of 2019 (CNR No. HRPK01-003701), whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge/dropping of proceedings was dismissed. Per the source preview, FIR No. RCCHG2018A0007 dated 06.03.2018 was registered on the basis of a complaint, with the prosecution's case being that the accused-petitioner, who was posted as an Inspector in the Income Tax department, had allegedly threatened the complainant who ran a filling station.

5. Ram Naresh Singh And 5 Others vs Union Of India

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 10 September 2026
Sections engaged: 123, 124, 124A, 125, 129, 17, 19, 2(e), 30
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court as Writ-C No. 27617 of 2026, heard along with a batch of connected writ petitions filed by multiple petitioners against the Union of India. Per the source preview, the matter involves several petitioners including Ram Naresh Singh and others, Sudama Ram, Vidyakant Mishra, Khutali Devi, Ramnagina, Nirmala, Devraji, Ashok, Smt. Seema Devi, Anil Kumar Chauhan, Smt. Reeta Patro, Bindeshwari Devi, Shashi Devi, and Smt. Soni Devi, all arrayed against the Union of India; the precise substantive dispute is not discernible from the source preview beyond the batch filing format.

6. Union Of India vs Ncc Limited

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 9 September 2026
Sections engaged: 12(5), 16, 19, 29A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter came before the Delhi High Court as O.M.P. (COMM) 292/2019, reserved on 13 May 2026 and pronounced on 9 September 2026, along with OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 209/2019. Per the source preview, the case concerns an arbitration award in which directions had been given to the Union of India (as judgment debtor) to pay an amount to NCC Limited (formerly known as Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited), together with interest, and to release a performance bank guarantee of Rs. 9,53,00,000/-; all four counter-claims raised by the petitioner-Union of India had been rejected by the arbitral tribunal.

7. C. Baskar vs Union Of India

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 September 2026
Sections engaged: 17(1)(f), 19, 3A(1), 3D, 50, 8(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court as WP Crl. No. 1793 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution, reserved on 28 July 2026 and pronounced on 8 September 2026. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought a declaration that the search conducted at his residential premises on 20.11.2025, and his subsequent arrest on 05.02.2026 under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were illegal, null and void; the respondents included the Union of India (Ministry of Finance) and officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai.

8. Smt. Sumana vs C. Vikram Rao

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 7 September 2026
Sections engaged: 13(1)(ia), 173, 19
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These memoranda of Family Court Appeals (FCA Nos. 25 and 26 of 2024) were filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court at Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar in FCOP No. 1625 of 2018 and FCOP No. 36 of 2020, dated 18.12.2023. Per the source preview, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court erred in dismissing the OP filed by the appellant; both appeals were decided by a common judgment.

9. M/S Durga Rice And Dall Mills And 4 Others vs Shri Ram Avtar And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 7 September 2026
Sections engaged: 19, 20, 22(2)(g), 25, 30
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was filed before the Allahabad High Court as Special Appeal No. 339 of 2024 (along with connected Special Appeal No. 376 of 2024 involving Banaras State Bank Limited, now Bank of Baroda), reserved on 12 May 2026 and delivered on 7 September 2026. Per the source preview, both appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and were decided by a common judgment; facts were delineated from Special Appeal No. 339 of 2024, but the substantive dispute is not further described in the available source preview.

10. Atlantis Agritech Private Limited vs M/S. Kendriya Bhandar

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 18(1), 18(2), 19, 2(n), 47
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Civil Revision Petition No. 1947 of 2026 (CNR No. HBHC010443032026) arose out of an order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad in Commercial Execution Application No. 135 of 2025, filed in CEP No. 29 of 2024. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a "Supplier" as defined under section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006, engaged in manufacturing agricultural machinery and equipment; it had supplied goods to the respondent under multiple supply orders from August 2019 to June 2020, and after non-payment approached the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council with a claim petition.

11. Basavaraj @ Basya @ Huliya vs The Superintendent Of Police

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 1 September 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 19, 54, 55, 78, 86
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) as WP No. 203639 of 2026 (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner was subject to an externment order dated 18.08.2026 made by Respondent No. 1, and because of that externment order the petition was filed through his natural father; the relief sought relates to the externment order, with respondents being police authorities across Kalaburagi district.

12. Usha Devi vs Vijay Kumar

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 1 September 2026
Sections engaged: 13, 19
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (F.A. No. 28 of 2022) was directed against the order/judgment dated 31.08.2021 and decree signed on 09.09.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra in Original Suit No. 18 of 2019. Per the source preview, the suit filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion had been allowed by the Family Court, dissolving the marriage between the parties; the appeal was reserved on 07.07.2026 and pronounced on 01.09.2026.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Dominant invocation: Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The most frequently recurring use of "Section 19" across this batch is as the appellate gateway under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Cases 1, 2, 8, and 12 all expressly involve Family Court Appeals filed under that provision, with the appeals variously concerning divorce, matrimonial conduct, cruelty, desertion, and financial settlements. This pattern reflects the volume of intra-family litigation reaching the High Court tier.
PMLA Section 19 — constitutional challenge to arrest. Case 7 presents a distinct invocation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, with the petitioner seeking a writ declaration that both the search of his residential premises and his subsequent arrest under that provision were illegal. This reflects a recognisable litigation pattern in which PMLA arrestees challenge the procedural validity of the arrest power before High Courts under Article 226.
Commercial and MSMED enforcement proceedings. Cases 9 and 10 involve commercial or MSMED-statute contexts where Section 19 (of the relevant statute) or related provisions appear alongside enforcement or appeal mechanisms. Case 10 expressly concerns an MSMED Award-Holder pursuing execution before the Commercial Court, with the revision petition arising from that execution application.
Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings in the same batch. Cases 3, 4, and 11 are criminal or quasi-criminal in character — a bail application under the NDPS Act, a criminal revision in a corruption matter, and a writ against an externment order respectively. The co-appearance of "Section 19" in these cases is attributable to different statutes (NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, and Karnataka Police Act or analogous law), underscoring that "Section 19" as a search term cuts across legal regimes.
Uniform absence of reasoned outcome in source data. All 12 cases in this batch carry the outcome direction "Outcome not specified in source." This is a data-layer observation rather than a substantive pattern, and researchers should consult the full judgments on the respective High Court portals or indiankanoon.org to ascertain the operative dispositive direction in each matter.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is an entry-point index, not a substitute for the full judgment. Each ruling listed above should be verified against the complete text of the order as published on the relevant High Court's official portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for the Madras High Court, or the Jharkhand, Telangana, Allahabad, Delhi, Karnataka, Tripura, and Punjab-Haryana High Court e-filing portals) or on indiankanoon.org. Given that all 12 entries carry "Outcome not specified in source," the operative relief — whether the appeal was allowed, dismissed, remanded, or disposed of in terms — must be ascertained from the primary source before the ruling is cited in any legal proceeding or research note.

Researchers should additionally check whether any of these orders have been stayed, challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal or SLP, or otherwise modified after the date of pronouncement. The date of upload to a court portal may differ from the date of pronouncement, and subsequent events such as clarification applications or contempt proceedings can alter the practical significance of an order. Where a ruling is cited for a proposition of law, it is advisable to check whether the relevant High Court has since taken a different view in a later coordinate or larger bench decision.

Finally, because "Section 19" is shared across statutes — the Family Courts Act 1984, the PMLA 2002, the MSMED Act 2006, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the NDPS Act, and others — researchers should confirm which statute's Section 19 is operative in the case of interest before drawing any cross-case analogy. Section numbering coincidence does not imply substantive similarity, and holdings under one statute's Section 19 do not constitute persuasive authority under another statute's identically numbered provision.

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 19 Family Courts Act & Allied Statutes: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)