ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(221) DR. ANU NAYYAR Vs. THE STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERITORY OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 482 — Quashing of Proceedings — Medical Negligence (Section 304A IPC) — Supplementary Charge Sheet Based Solely on Medical Council Findings — Criminal proceedings initiated via a supplementary charge sheet and consequent summoning order under Sections 304A IPC etc., against a Radiologist (Petitioner), based solely on the findings/observations of the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) Ethics Committee regarding ‘deficiency of service’ or ‘unethical
India Law Library Docid # 2424998

(222) UOI Vs. JASBIR SINGH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Scope of Judicial Review — Findings of Fact — Delay in Contract Execution — The Court, while examining a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34, cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the arbitrator on findings of fact, such as the attribution of delay in the execution of a works contract — Interference is warranted only if the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse (such that no reasonable person could
India Law Library Docid # 2424999

(223) JYOTI Vs. DARSHANA RANI (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 144 — Restitution — Applicability upon Setting Aside of Ex Parte Decree — The doctrine of restitution enshrined in Section 144 CPC is squarely applicable when a party obtains possession of property in execution of an ex parte decree, and subsequently, that ex parte decree is set aside and the suit is ultimately dismissed — The court which passed the original decree is obligated, upon application by the party dispossessed under the ex parte decree, to cause r
India Law Library Docid # 2425067

(224) NISHA SHARMA Vs. BIMALJEET KAUR @ JASVIR KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 2 Rule 2 — Bar of Suit — Requirements for Establishing Plea — Identity of Cause of Action — To successfully invoke the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, the defendant bears the burden of establishing, not merely by inference but through satisfactory proof: (i) that the second suit is in respect of the same cause of action as the previous suit; (ii) that based on that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief in the earlier suit; and (iii)
India Law Library Docid # 2425068

(225) SURJIT SINGH Vs. JASDEV SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Ancestral/Coparcenary Property — Burden and Standard of Proof — The burden lies heavily upon the party asserting that a property is ancestral or coparcenary joint Hindu family property — This must be established through cogent and reliable evidence, demonstrating inheritance through the requisite unbroken line of succession for necessary generations — Mere oral testimonies or scanty revenue records, in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence establis
India Law Library Docid # 2425069

(226) VEENA RANI Vs. SURAJ BANSAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Burden and Standard of Proof — The onus to plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, from the date of the contract up to the date of the decree, lies squarely and mandatorily upon the plaintiff seeking specific performance — This includes demonstrating financial capacity (“readiness”) and the intent to perform (“willingness”) — Merely proving presence at the Sub-Regi
India Law Library Docid # 2425070

(227) PARMA NAND AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. RAJPAL KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Adverse Possession — Burden and Nature of Proof — Essential Elements — The plea of adverse possession is fundamentally fact-based, requiring the party asserting it (typically the defendant) to discharge a heavy burden of proof through proper pleadings and cogent evidence — Mere assertion of long possession is insufficient; the claimant must establish the co-existence of all classic requirements: possession that is adequate in continuity (nec vi), adequate in publicity (nec clam), and adverse to
India Law Library Docid # 2425071

(228) THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. RAM SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Failed Sterilization (Vasectomy) — Proof — The failure of a sterilization operation (vasectomy) does not automatically constitute medical negligence — Given that sterilization methods are not 100% infallible and have a known statistical failure rate due to natural causes, negligence must be specifically proven against the operating surgeon — Mere occurrence of pregnancy post-operation is insufficient to establish liability in tort — The competence of the surgeon,
India Law Library Docid # 2425072

(229) SURAJ BHAN AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 302, 307 — Common Intention — Shared Motive and Concerted Action — Where multiple accused (related as brothers) arrive together armed with different weapons, share a common motive (dispute over loan recovery), and participate in a concerted attack resulting in death and injury, common intention under Section 34 IPC is established for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC — It is not necessary for each accused to inflict a fatal blow; participation in furtherance
India Law Library Docid # 2425073

(230) TEHSEEN POONAWALLA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Imposition of Costs on Petitioner/Accused — Permissibility — Once the High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arrives at a finding that absolutely no offence is made out against the accused persons and consequently quashes the First Information Report (FIR) and proceedings arising therefrom, there is no justification or legal basis for imposing costs upon the successful petitioners — The High Court ought to fol
India Law Library Docid # 2425105

(231) RAJIV NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must demonstrate that, in all human probability, the act was done by the accused — The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive in nature, and
India Law Library Docid # 2425114

(232) MUKHTIAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 107 & 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — Mens Rea and Positive Act — To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a prima facie case demonstrating, first, that the deceased committed suicide, and second, that the accused abetted this suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC — Abetment requires a clear mens rea (intention) to commit the offence and involves a mental process of instigating the deceased or intentionally
India Law Library Docid # 2425115

(233) SURENDRA AGARWALA Vs. INDIRA GUPTA AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Hindu Law — Mitakshara School — Joint Family Property — Partition Suit — Nucleus — Burden of Proof — Suit filed by a son against his siblings for partition and administration of assets of the deceased father and the Agarwala family — Plaintiff claimed the main business and various other properties/assets were joint family properties acquired from family corpus/funds generated from the main business — Defendants contended that the main business became the sole proprietorship of Defendant No. 2 a
India Law Library Docid # 2425158

(234) MAHESH THAKUR Vs. OM PRAKASH BHARTIA AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Pre-institution Mediation — Dispensation based on Urgent Interim Relief — Test for Contemplation — The requirement under Section 12A(1) for mandatory pre-institution mediation is exempted if the suit “contemplates any urgent interim relief” — The word “contemplate” means the plaint, documents, and facts must show and indicate the need for urgent interim relief — The test is not whether urgent relief is immediately required at the moment of filing, but
India Law Library Docid # 2425199

(235) TAPAS BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Corroboration — The theory of ‘last seen together’ is a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence — Where the prosecution establishes through credible witnesses (including close relatives of the accused like wife and father-in-law, and independent witnesses like a rickshaw puller) that the accused was last seen with the deceased victim shortly before her death, and the accused fails to provide any explanation
India Law Library Docid # 2425201

(236) ARNAB GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 153A — Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups — Essential Ingredients — Live TV Debate — Panelist’s Comment — To constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC, the act must promote, or attempt to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between two or more distinct religious, racial, language, or regional groups or castes or communities — Where a controversial statement targeting a community is made by a panelist during a live television debate,
India Law Library Docid # 2425202

(237) HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) & (s) — “Public View” Requirement — For an offence under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult/intimidation) or Section 3(1)(s) (abuse by caste name) of the SC/ST Act, the act must occur “within public view” — Where a key prosecution witness (PW-1, complainant’s husband) explicitly states in evidence that only immediate family members were present during the alleged incident and no other
India Law Library Docid # 2424332

(238) SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025
Insurance Law — Marine Insurance — Special Condition — “Voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in” — Implied Waiver / Non-Materiality — Where a marine insurance policy covers a voyage (Mumbai to Kolkata) for a specific period (16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) which overlaps with the officially defined monsoon/foul weather season (commencing 1st May East Coast / 1st June West Coast), a special condition requiring the voyage to both commence and complete before the monsoon sets in is deeme
India Law Library Docid # 2424333

(239) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. PARK LEATHER INDUSTRIES LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Pleading and Evidence — Rejoinder — A respondent/complainant cannot introduce new factual evidence, such as a surveyor's report assessing quantum of loss, for the first time in a rejoinder and expect the opposing party (appellant/opposite party) to have denied it in their earlier written statement/reply — The adjudicatory body cannot base its findings on the premise that the opposing party failed to deny evidence that was not before it when its pleadings
India Law Library Docid # 2424334

(240) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. RAM KISHORI GUPTA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025
Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata — Applicability to SEBI Proceedings — The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, based on public policy ensuring finality, apply to proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and its Whole-Time Members (WTMs) — SEBI cannot pass multiple final orders imposing penalties on the same cause of action against the same parties based on the same show-cause notice, particularly after an earlier order (imposing debarment
India Law Library Docid # 2424335