(261) LEKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. AMI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope and Limitations — Error Apparent on Face of Record — The jurisdiction to review a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed and limited — It cannot be invoked to rehear the matter on merits or to correct an erroneous decision, which is the domain of an appeal — Review is permissible only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an error that is self-evident and does not require elaborate a India Law Library Docid # 2425065
(262) SUPARNA BHALLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 [Cr.P.C., 1973, Section 482] — Initial Stage — FIR Not Encyclopedia — The First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case; its purpose is limited to setting the criminal law in motion — The absence of specific, detailed allegations against an accused in the FIR, or the fact that an accused is not named therein, is not a ground for quashing the FIR at the India Law Library Docid # 2425066
(263) DINESH DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 467, 468, 471 — Forgery of Valuable Security, Forgery for Cheating, Using Forged Document — Proof — Expert Evidence — Conviction under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC is sustainable where the prosecution proves through conclusive expert evidence (handwriting analysis) that the accused (a bank employee) was involved in forging documents related to the encashment of a high-value cheque via a fictitious bank account, and used such forged documents as genuine for the purpo India Law Library Docid # 2425203
(264) TATA SKY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. S G ENTERPREISES - TATA SKY SALES AND SERVICES AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Practice and Procedure — Clarification of Orders — Inadvertent Errors — The Court has the power to correct inadvertent errors in its previous orders upon an application being filed demonstrating the error — In this instance, paragraphs in a previous order concerning the status and implementation timeline of the ‘Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility’ for RTGS/NEFT by RBI were corrected based on an application and clarification provided. India Law Library Docid # 2424944
(265) GURWINDER SINGH ALIAS GORI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 [as applicable via Revision against JJB/Sessions Court orders] — Bail — General Principles — Presumption of Innocence — In considering bail applications, particularly in revisions against denial of bail, courts reiterate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence — The grant of bail is generally the rule, and putting a person in jail or prison before conviction is an exception, requiring justifica India Law Library Docid # 2425048
(266) SIMRANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in Injury Claims — Just Compensation Principle — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — The assessment of compensation in injury cases must adhere to the principle of ‘just compensation’, aiming to provide adequate recompense without being a bonanza or unduly meagre — In cases of permanent disability, the focus must be on the impact of the disability on the claimant’s earning capacity (functional disability), which may differ significantly from th India Law Library Docid # 2425049
(267) SOUMEN PAUL AND OTHERS Vs. SHRABANI NAYEK AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Service Law — Recruitment — Eligibility Qualification — Interpretation of Rules — West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, Rule 6(2) — Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 (as amended on 22.12.2020), which requires candidates to possess the minimum educational and training qualification prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) "prevailing as on date of publication of recruitment notification," primarily functions to incor India Law Library Docid # 2424245
(268) A RAJENDRA Vs. GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61(2) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 12 — Appeal to NCLAT — Limitation Period — Commencement and Calculation — The statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is thirty days, commencing from the date of pronouncement of the order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) — The NCLAT possesses discretion to condone India Law Library Docid # 2424246
(269) KOUSIK DAS AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Education Law — Teacher Qualification — Diploma in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.) — NIOS 18-Month ODL Programme — Purpose and Scope — The 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.) programme conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) through Open Distance Learning (ODL) mode, pursuant to the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017, was a specific, one-time measure necessitated by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 — This p India Law Library Docid # 2424247
(270) SANGITA SINHA Vs. BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Specific Performance — Readiness and Willingness — Effect of Accepting Refund — A buyer's continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of an Agreement to Sell, a prerequisite for seeking specific performance, is negated by their conduct of accepting and encashing a substantial portion of the refunded earnest money/advance consideration sent by the seller along with a cancellation notice, especially when such encashment occurs during the p India Law Library Docid # 2424248
(271) JOGESWAR SAHOO AND OTHERS Vs. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, CUTTACK AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Retired Employees — Non-Fault Based Payment — Recovery of excess payments made years prior to non-gazetted employees (Stenographers) due to the employer's erroneous interpretation of rules or recommendations (Shetty Commission), without any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the employees, is impermissible after their superannuation. India Law Library Docid # 2424249
(272) MURUGAN Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of Evidence — Benefit of Doubt — In cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly points only towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for any other hypothesis consistent with innocence — Any missing link or reasonable doubt arising at any stage necessitates acquittal, as strong suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. India Law Library Docid # 2424250
(273) MD. MAHMUD ALAM @ MAHMUD @ NEPALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43D(5) — Bail — Restriction on Grant — Prima Facie Case — Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes a specific embargo on the grant of bail if the Court, upon perusal of the case diary and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., forms an opinion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusation against the person for committing an offence under Chapter IV or VI of the UAPA is prima facie true — This standard shifts the conventional bail j India Law Library Docid # 2424326
(274) SRI. VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 306, 307 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 5(2) — Tender of Pardon — Procedure by Special Judge/Sessions Court — Interpretation of “on the same condition” in S. 307 — Requirement to record acceptance of pardon (S. 306(3)(b)) — Deemed Acceptance — The condition stipulated in Section 307 Cr.P.C. (“on the same condition”) for granting pardon by the Court to which the case is committed (or a Special Court exercising similar power) refers specific India Law Library Docid # 2424339
(275) M/S SUN RAMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SMT. SHANTHA SRINIVAS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 10 (Pre-2018 Amendment), Section 20 (Pre-2018 Amendment) — Decree for Specific Performance — Discretionary Relief — Culpable Conduct of Vendor — While the grant of specific performance under the pre-2018 amended Specific Relief Act was discretionary, such discretion must be exercised judicially based on principles of reason, justice, and equity — Where the vendor (1st defendant) exhibits culpable conduct, such as violating a court’s status quo order by alienat India Law Library Docid # 2424360
(276) SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 04-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) — Right to Peaceful Protest — Police Action — Lathi Charge — Judicial Inquiry — Citizens have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and protest under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution — Where serious allegations arise, supported by prima facie material (like photographs, videos, medical reports), that police resorted to excessive force, such as an allegedly unprovoked lathi charge on peaceful protestors (including a p India Law Library Docid # 2424396
(277) THE CHIEF MANAGER / BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SHAHABAD BRANCH AND OTHERS Vs. MAHALINGAPPA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 04-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Availability of Alternate Remedy — Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 — Sections 13(4), 14 & 17 — A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ordinarily not maintainable — The aggrieved person, including the borrower, has an efficacious and co India Law Library Docid # 2424397
(278) MAHALAXMI Vs. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (KPSC) AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 04-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(3), 16 & 39(a) — Public Employment — Examination — Pregnant Candidate — Advanced Stage — Inability to Travel — Reasonable Accommodation — Right to Livelihood — Where a qualified candidate (petitioner) is unable to travel to designated examination centres (Bengaluru/Dharwad) for a crucial public service main examination due to being in an advanced stage of pregnancy and medical advice against travel, directing the examining body (KPSC) to conduct the India Law Library Docid # 2424398
(279) Ms. A. SHILPA Vs. M/s SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2025 Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Non-disclosure of Material Facts – Alcoholism – Multiple Policies – Burden of Proof – Section 45, Insurance Act, 1938 – The repudiation of life insurance claims by the insurer on the grounds of non-disclosure of the deceased life assured’s (DLA) alleged chronic alcoholism and holding of multiple insurance policies was held unjustified — The insurer failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, which re India Law Library Docid # 2424487
(280) BIRENDER KUMAR SINGH Vs. TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Medical Negligence – Misdiagnosis – Cancer (Adenocarcinoma vs. SPEN) – Standard of Care – Burden of Proof – Allegations of medical negligence against hospitals (OP1 & OP2) for misdiagnosing pancreatic cancer (Adenocarcinoma) instead of Solid Cystic Papillary Epithelial Neoplasm (SPEN), leading to chemotherapy and pancreatectomy, were examined — The complainant argued OP2 misdiagnosed based on FNAC and OP1 wrongly relied on OP2’s report without indepen India Law Library Docid # 2424488