(241) KUNCHAM LAVANYA AND OTHERS Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim Petitions — Standard of Proof — In motor accident claim proceedings, the standard of proof required to establish the involvement of a vehicle and negligence is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. India Law Library Docid # 2424336
(242) K. GOPI Vs. THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Tamil Nadu Registration Rules — Rule 55A(i) — Validity — Ultra Vires — Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowers a registering officer to refuse registration of a document relating to immovable property unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed of the executant or other specified proof of the executant's right/title, is declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 — The Rule imposes a condition for registration India Law Library Docid # 2424327
(243) BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Misconception of Fact — Promise to Marry — Consent to sexual intercourse given by a mature individual, fully aware from the outset that the promisor is already married (though separated), cannot be deemed to be vitiated by a “misconception of fact” under Section 375 IPC merely based on a promise to marry after obtaining a divorce — Such knowledge precludes the necessary “misconception” and indicates a reasoned decision to engage in the relationsh India Law Library Docid # 2424328
(244) JASPAL SINGH KAURAL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — False Promise of Marriage — For consent to sexual intercourse to be vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising from a promise to marry, the promise must be false ab initio, made without any intention of being adhered to, and must have a direct nexus to the complainant’s decision Where the complainant was aware that the accused was married at the inception of the relationship, and the relationship was prolonged (spanning several years, even af India Law Library Docid # 2424329
(245) UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Insufficient Allegations — An FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 120-B IPC concerning a decades-old land transaction was rightly quashed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. against the Managing Director of the beneficiary cooperative society where the allegations amounted merely to a “bland allegation of connivance” with state officials, without specifying his role in the alleged criminal conspiracy or corruption, India Law Library Docid # 2424330
(246) JAGDISH GOND Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A & 306 — Cruelty & Abetment of Suicide — Allegations supporting charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC must be specific and substantiated — Vague complaints about the deceased being lazy or sick, without evidence of physical violence or persistent harassment meeting the threshold of cruelty likely to drive suicide, are insufficient for conviction under these sections. India Law Library Docid # 2424331
(247) RAJIV GHOSH Vs. SATYA NARYAN JAISWAL[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-04-2025 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 — Section 2(g) — Inherited Tenancy — Limitation — The definition of "tenant" under S. 2(g) extends tenancy rights to specified heirs (including son/daughter) of a deceased tenant for a maximum period of five years from the date of the tenant's death (or the Act's commencement, whichever is later), provided they were ordinarily living with and dependent on the tenant and meet other conditions — This five-year limitation does not apply to the dependent spouse India Law Library Docid # 2424446
(248) A.R. PETER Vs. SARADA NARAYANAN[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 2 Rule 2 — Suit to Include Whole Claim — Rule mandates including the entire claim arising from a single cause of action in one suit — Omission to sue for one of several reliefs available on the same cause of action, without court leave, bars a subsequent suit for the omitted relief India Law Library Docid # 2424642
(249) BABU M Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(1) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 47(1) — Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest — Every person arrested must be informed of the full particulars or grounds for arrest “as soon as may be” — This is a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement, violation of which infringes fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) India Law Library Docid # 2424643
(250) V.T. JINU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 197 — Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants — Sanction is required only if the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” — The act/omission charged must have a reasonable connection with the discharge of duties. India Law Library Docid # 2424644
(251) BHASKAR ROHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 497 — Adultery — Offence Unconstitutional — Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 11 S.C.R. 765, as it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, a conviction recorded under Section 497 IPC after the said judgment (or even for offences committed prior, as the section itself is struck down) is unsustainable in law and liable to be set as India Law Library Docid # 2424717
(252) VASHIST SAINATH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Factors for Consideration — Gravity of Offence and Stage of Investigation — In exercising discretion under Section 482 BNSS (Anticipatory Bail), the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, the stage of the investigation, and the potential impact of granting bail on the ongoing investigation — Anticipatory bail may be declined where serious allegations involving substantial financial mi India Law Library Docid # 2424841
(253) KALLURU NARAYANA REDDY Vs. KALLURU CHENCHUGANDLA JAYA CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 26 Rule 9 — Appointment of Advocate Commissioner — Purpose — Elucidating Matter in Dispute vs. Collecting Evidence — Discretion of Court — The power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is discretionary and intended for elucidating matters in dispute where a prima facie case exists and local investigation is deemed proper — Such appointment cannot be used as a means for a party to collect evidence to prove India Law Library Docid # 2424907
(254) S.B. PODDAR Vs. M/S REHABILITATIONS PLANTATION LTD AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Executing Court — Power to Go Behind Decree — Nullity — Lack of Jurisdiction — The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and entertain objections regarding its validity on grounds that could and should have been raised during the trial stage, especially when the decree has attained finality — An objection that the decree is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction (alleging no cause of action pleaded against the judgment debtor) or that it was o India Law Library Docid # 2424940
(255) ANKUR JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482] — Quashing of FIR — Settlement in Cases Arising from Family/Trust Disputes — Sections 420/468/471 IPC — Where criminal proceedings under Sections 420/468/471 IPC arise out of disputes inter se between parties related through family and involved in the administration of a common trust, and the parties subsequently arrive at a comprehensive, voluntary, an India Law Library Docid # 2424941
(256) MRS. KIRAN SURAN Vs. SH. SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 31(5) & 34(3) — Limitation for Setting Aside Award — Commencement — Receipt of Signed Award — The limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award commences only from the date on which the party making the application receives a copy of the award signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal, as mandated by Section 31(5). India Law Library Docid # 2424942
(257) M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED Vs. OZONE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Enquiry — Non-Signatory Party — The scope of enquiry by the Court under Section 11 is confined primarily to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties sought to be referred — While considering reference of a non-signatory based on doctrines like ‘Group of Companies’, the Court undertakes only a minimal, prima facie review without detailed analysis — A comprehe India Law Library Docid # 2424943
(258) RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS RAKESH SINGLA Vs. SATISH KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6A and Order 6 Rule 17 — Counterclaim — Amendment of Written Statement — Time Limit for Filing Counterclaim — Stage after Closure of Evidence — An application seeking amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate a counterclaim, when filed after the framing of issues and after the conclusion of evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, when the case is posted for rebuttal evidence or arguments, is impermissible — Rel India Law Library Docid # 2425062
(259) KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. BHEERO @ PRAKASH KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Due Execution and Attestation — To prove the due execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act, the propounder must satisfy the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examining at least one attesting witness, if available — The attesting witness must testify not only to the testator’s signature/mark but also that the testator signed/marked in their presence and that they, along with the India Law Library Docid # 2425063
(260) TARA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 108 — Burden of Proof — Person not heard of for seven years — Where the prosecution case rests on the premise that a person (victim of forgery) has not been heard of for over seven years, establishing this fact shifts the burden under Section 108 of the Evidence Act onto the accused who assert that the person was alive during the relevant period — The failure of the accused to discharge this burden by leading cogent evidence, especially when they had the opportunity, India Law Library Docid # 2425064