(141) PINKI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC — High Court granted b India Law Library Docid # 2424657
(142) MRS. VARSHATAI W/O. SH. SANJAY BAGADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 — Section 3 — Official Language — Use of Additional Language — The prescription of Marathi as the official language for Local Authorities under Section 3 of the 2022 Act does not operate as a prohibition against the use of any other language, such as Urdu (a language included in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution), in addition to Marathi on signboards of a Municipal Council, particularly for the purpose of effective communication wi India Law Library Docid # 2424694
(143) NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA AND ANOTHER Vs. HITESH P. SANGHVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Bar of Limitation — For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is obligated to consider the averments made in the plaint alone — Where, from a plain reading of the plaint averments, the suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected — No requirement exists to allow parties to lead evidence on limitation when the bar is apparent ex-facie from India Law Library Docid # 2424695
(144) CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Mixed Question of Law and Fact — Copyright Act, 1957 & Designs Act, 2000 — The determination of whether an ‘artistic work’ (under Copyright Act, S. 2(c)) falls within the definition of a ‘design’ (under Designs Act, S. 2(d)) and whether copyright protection ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act due to industrial application involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination beyond th India Law Library Docid # 2424696
(145) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424770
(146) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424800
(147) ASHOK RANI Vs. KASHMIRI LAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Scope of Adjudication by Court — Merits vs. Allowability — While deciding an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court should generally confine itself to whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and whether it causes prejudice to the other side — The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by the amendment are not to be adjudicated upon or decided at India Law Library Docid # 2424932
(148) AMIT VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] — Inherent Powers of High Court — Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings — Settlement in Matrimonial Disputes — Exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings based on an amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner-husband (and his family members) and the respondent No.2-wife — Factors supportin India Law Library Docid # 2424933
(149) ASEEM RAJPAL Vs. DIVYA DUGGAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 23 & 29 — Interim Maintenance — Assessment of Income and Entitlement — Determination of interim maintenance involves a prima facie assessment based on pleadings, income affidavits, and admitted background/lifestyle of parties — Where husband claims low income inconsistent with affluent background and lifestyle, appellate court’s conservative assessment of his income (Rs. 50,000/- pm) for interim maintenance is justified — Wife’s India Law Library Docid # 2424934
(150) AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Copyright Act, 1957 — Sections 18(2), 30, 33(1), 33(3), 33A — Licensing of Copyright — Sound Recordings — Requirement of Copyright Society Registration/Membership — Interpretation — Any person or association of persons (including an assignee of copyright in sound recordings under S. 18(2)) carrying on the “business of issuing or granting licences” in respect of copyrighted works or any other rights conferred by the Act, is mandatorily required by S. 33(1) to do so only under or in accordance wit India Law Library Docid # 2424935
(151) SONU Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 — Bail — Commercial Quantity — Applicability of Twin Conditions — Grant of regular bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband (Opium Doda) — Where conscious possession of the contraband by the applicant (a driver) is a seriously debatable question of fact to be determined during trial, and considering factors such as: (i) prolong India Law Library Docid # 2424936
(152) JUSTICE V.S. DAVE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF RETD. JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS Vs. KUSUMJIT SIDHU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Service Law — Retired High Court Judges — Reimbursement of Expenses (Medical etc.) — Responsibility of State Government — Clarification of Prior Order — Where a High Court Judge is appointed in one High Court but retires from another High Court due to transfer, the responsibility for reimbursement of expenses (as directed by court orders) lies either with the State Government where the seat of the High Court in which the retired Judge was first appointed is situated, or with the State Government India Law Library Docid # 2425058
(153) REKHA SHARMA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 16, 32 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Recruitment — Judicial Services — Reservation (Horizontal - PwBD; Vertical - EWS/ST) — Minimum Qualifying Marks vs. Cut-off — Adjustment of Candidates — In recruitment processes involving both vertical and horizontal reservations (like for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - PwBD), the non-selection of a PwBD candidate who has secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks but falls below the P India Law Library Docid # 2425060
(154) JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. XX R. 1 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015) & Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 & Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — S. 13(1-A) — Commencement of Limitation for Appeal — Duty to Issue Copy vs. Litigant Diligence — The provision in Or. XX R. 1 CPC, requiring a Commercial Court/Division/Appellate Division to pronounce judgment within 90 days of conclusion of arguments and issue copies thereof to parties (through electronic mail or otherwise), is directory and not mand India Law Library Docid # 2425137
(155) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SRI BIRESH CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAY[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 11-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528] — Quashing of Cognizance Order and Proceedings — Scope of Inquiry — Abuse of Process — Political Rivalry — In exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (S. 528 BNSS), particularly when factors like potential political rivalry or ulterior motives are alleged, the Court is not limited to accepting the charge sheet averments at face value. It can scrutinize the accompanying materials, witnes India Law Library Docid # 2424835
(156) M/S. HEINEN AND HOPMAN ENGINEERING (I) PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 11-04-2025 Payment of Wages Act, 1936 — Section 2(vi) — Definition of ‘Wages’ — Pension — Non-Contributory Scheme — Pension payable to an employee under a non-contributory scheme (funded solely by the employer) established under the terms of employment (express or implied) falls within the primary definition of ‘wages’ under Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 — It constitutes remuneration payable in respect of employment or work done, becoming due upon fulfilment of conditions like termination India Law Library Docid # 2425165
(157) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMP LTD. Vs. ALLAPURAJU SUJANA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Negligence — Appreciation of Evidence — Eyewitness Testimony vs. Police Reports In adjudicating claims under Section 166, the finding of negligence must be based on a preponderance of probabilities — Direct eyewitness testimony, particularly from credible witnesses like police officers who were inmates of a vehicle involved in the accident, is to be given significantly more weightage and credence than contents of police investigation documents like the In India Law Library Docid # 2424827
(158) SMT. SOMURI RAVALI Vs. SOMURI PURNACHANDRA RAO[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e)(i), 11(6), 29A(4) & (5) — Jurisdiction for Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate — Domestic Arbitration — High Court Appointment — In a domestic arbitration where the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4) or (5) vests solely with the High Court — Consequently, a Commercial India Law Library Docid # 2424837
(159) MOHAMMAD DASTAGIR KHAN @ ASIF Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Sections 15 & 19 — Two-Stage Assessment for Trying Child as Adult — The Act mandates a two-stage process when determining if a child aged 16-18, alleged to have committed a heinous offence, should be tried as an adult: (i) A preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 15 regarding the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand consequences, and circumstances of the offence; and (ii) A sub India Law Library Docid # 2424845
(160) ISKA VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY Vs. N.VIJAYA KRISHNA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Pleading and Proof — In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the plaintiff must mandatorily plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of the agreement until the date of hearing/decree Readiness pertains to financial capacity, while willingness pertains to conduct — A mere statement in the plaint or affidavit asserting readiness is insufficient India Law Library Docid # 2424890