ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(281) B.S YEDDIYURAPPA Vs. A ALAM PASHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17A — Prior Approval for Investigation — Relevant Considerations — The scope of considerations for the appropriate authority or government when evaluating a request for prior approval under Section 17A for initiating any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant falls for determination
India Law Library Docid # 2424550

(282) SARJUPRASAD Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Setting Aside Award — Patent Illegality — Procedural Breach — An appellate court under Section 37 is justified in setting aside an arbitral award's enhancement (originally confirmed under Section 34) on grounds of patent illegality, where the arbitrator relied on crucial evidence (sale deeds) brought on record by one party after the formal closure of arbitral proceedings, thereby denying the other party an opportunity to respond
India Law Library Docid # 2424551

(283) SARJUPRASAD Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Patent Illegality — Procedural Fairness — Opportunity to Contest Evidence — An arbitral award based on documents (sale deeds) introduced after the formal closure of proceedings, without providing the opposing party an opportunity to contest their relevance or veracity, is vulnerable to challenge under Section 34 on grounds potentially amounting to patent
India Law Library Docid # 2424533

(284) SANTHA KUMARI AMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THARA. T. PILLAI AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of Negligence — Standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Police charge sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence; however, if parties adduce contrary oral evidence, the Tribunal must decide based on the evidence adduced, with the charge sheet losing significance
India Law Library Docid # 2424598

(285) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 145 — Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction — The bar under S.145 applies specifically to matters which an assessing officer (S.126), appellate authority (S.127), or adjudicating officer is empowered to determine, and to injunctions against actions taken in pursuance of powers conferred by the Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2424599

(286) TARUN SEN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault — Proof of Victim’s Age Below 18 — Standard of Proof — Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — Section 94 — In a prosecution under the POCSO Act, establishing that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident is a sine qua non — The prosecution must prove the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to the hierarchy of evidence prescribed in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2
India Law Library Docid # 2424718

(287) SMT. NEHA SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. KAUSHAL KISHORE SHARMA[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6 — Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 — Custody of Minor Child — Paramount Consideration — Welfare of Child — In deciding the custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration for the Court is the welfare and well-being of the child — The rights of the parents under personal law are secondary to the child’s welfare — Factors like the child’s stability, security, education, emotional, intellectual, moral, and ethical development, and favourab
India Law Library Docid # 2424719

(288) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH Vs. M/S. V-CON INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 04-04-2025
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 263 — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — Lack of Inquiry vs. Erroneous Conclusion — A clear distinction exists between (i) failure or absence of investigation by the Assessing Officer (AO), and (ii) a wrong decision or conclusion reached by the AO after conducting inquiries — Where the AO conducts inquiries but accepts the assessee’s stand without making additions, it
India Law Library Docid # 2424803

(289) STEEL EXCHANGE INDIA LTD. Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Contract Law — Allotment of Industrial Land — Time as Essence — Where an agreement for allotment and sale of industrial land by a state development corporation (APIIC) explicitly states that time is the essence of the contract and stipulates a specific period for project implementation, failure by the allottee to complete the project within the specified timeline, even after an initial extension, constitutes a breach justifying cancellation of the allotment as per the agreement’s terms.
India Law Library Docid # 2424824

(290) VANKAYALAPATI BRAHMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Conviction — The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings of conviction is limited — It is not meant for re-appreciation of evidence as in an appeal — Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as manifest illegality, gross miscarriage of justice, flagrant violation of procedural law, or overlooking of material evidence, bu
India Law Library Docid # 2424826

(291) N.B. MURALI Vs. T. SRINIVASULU[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Applicability to Election Petitions under Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 — Exclusion of Time Spent in Wrong Forum — Election Petitions filed under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, which is a self-contained special Act prescribing its own period of limitation, are not governed by the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 — Consequently, Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to exclude or condone the period during which an Electi
India Law Library Docid # 2424838

(292) JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA Vs. STATE OF AP AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 2(y), 17(i) — Reasonable Accommodation — Compensatory Time in Examinations — The principle of “reasonable accommodation” under Sec 2(y) read with Sec 17(i) of the RPwD Act, 2016, mandates providing necessary adjustments, including adequate compensatory time in examinations, to students with benchmark disabilities (like Cerebral Palsy) to ensure equal opportunity and access to education, enabling them to overcome barriers caused by their di
India Law Library Docid # 2424888

(293) SRIRAM CHANDRA SEKHAR @ CHINTU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 216 — Alteration or Addition of Charge — Exclusive Power of Court — The power to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, as provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C., vests exclusively with the Court — It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise suo motu if it appears necessary based on the evidence and materials on record — Neither the prosecution nor the accused has a vested right or locus standi to file a formal applicat
India Law Library Docid # 2424889

(294) APSRTC, KRISHNA DIST Vs. B. MOHAN KUMAR[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of Negligence — Establishment of rash and negligent driving in accident claims; reliance on documentary evidence like First Information Report and Charge Sheetcoupled with the eyewitness testimony of the claimant (PW.1), can be sufficient to prove negligence, especially when inadequately rebutted by the opposing party (driver - RW.1) and where the respondent failed to implead other alleged negligent parties (lorry owner/insurer).
India Law Library Docid # 2424898

(295) PRATIMA KUMAR MIDHA, AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent Powers — Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings— Scope and exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of court or secure ends of justice — Power is existing, not new, to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases where complaint/FIR does not disclose an offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.
India Law Library Docid # 2424901

(296) BOGIRALA KONDAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. SHEELAM LAXMI SOUJANYA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — ‘Sufficient Cause’ — Liberal Construction— The expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 mandates a liberal interpretation by courts to advance substantial justice — Delays, particularly in procedural matters like bringing legal representatives on record or setting aside abatement, should generally be condoned if no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides is imputable to the applicant.
India Law Library Docid # 2424902

(297) MULI SIVA REDDY Vs. KAMBAM VENKATA REDDY[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law — Interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (which is the final court of facts) is impermissible unless such findings are shown to be erroneous being contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal principles (pronou
India Law Library Docid # 2424909

(298) FIITJEE LTD. Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 156(3) — Power of Magistrate to Direct FIR Registration — Discretionary Nature — The power vested in a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation is discretionary (‘may’) and not mandatory — The Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the facts and circumstances before passing such an order — An order under Section 156(3) should not be passed mechanically merely on the complainant’s
India Law Library Docid # 2424945

(299) AMANPREET SINGH MALHOTRA Vs. GAGANDEEP KAUR MALHOTRA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Maintenance of Children — School Fees — Apportionment between Earning Parents — In determining maintenance for children under Section 26 HMA, where both parents are earning, the court considers the income and expenses of both — While generally both parents share the responsibility, an order directing one parent (father/appellant) to bear the entire school fees is not necessarily infirm if the other parent (mother/respondent) is implicitly burdened with oth
India Law Library Docid # 2424946

(300) HARIRAM AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e), 34 — Jurisdiction — Definition of “Court” — Seat of Arbitration — For the purpose of filing a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside an arbitral award (other than in international commercial arbitration), the “Court” having jurisdiction is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, which would have jurisdiction over the subject-matter
India Law Library Docid # 2424947