(461) SMT. ARCHANA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. ANIL YADAV AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 — Employer-Employee Relationship — Proof — Alleged Familial Relationship — In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship for a claim under the Act, the sworn testimony of the owner (alleged employer) admitting the deceased was his driver and paid monthly wages carries significant weight — Mere assertions or entries in documents (like police statements or claim forms) suggesting a familial relationship, which are subsequently denied under oath India Law Library Docid # 2424693
(462) LINGA GOWRI SHANKER DIED PER L.RS. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1) — Compensation — Enhancement — Market Value Determination — Potentiality — Comparable Sales Method — Assessment of market value for acquired land — Consideration of factors like proximity to developed industrial and residential areas, availability of amenities, and potential for future development — Reliance on comparable sale deeds executed prior to Section 4(1) notification — Admissibility of sale statistics from preceding India Law Library Docid # 2424755
(463) MR. GOPU BALA REDDY Vs. THE BRG ENERGY LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Companies Act, 1956 — Winding Up — Locus Standi of Ex-Director — An ex-Director of a company in liquidation retains locus standi to challenge actions of a secured creditor if such actions potentially harm the liquidation process, the interests of other creditors, or if the ex-Director has a legitimate personal interest (submitted an OTS offer) and the challenge is based on valid legal grounds. India Law Library Docid # 2424776
(464) LINGA GOWRI SHANKER DIED PER L.RS. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 — Market Value — Determination — High Potentiality Land — Comparable Sales Method — Enhancement — Land acquired in 1990 (fresh notification after 1981 notification lapsed) located near developed industrial and residential areas with amenities — Claimants produced sale deeds showing surrounding plotted land value around Rs.150/- per sq.yd — LAO awarded Rs.70-75/sq.yd based on different sale stats — Reference Court, considering claimant’s evidence and high p India Law Library Docid # 2424777
(465) M/S NARNE ESTATES PVT LTD Vs. RAJU BAI RAJ KUMARI[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIII Rule 3 — Rejection of documents — Power of Court — A Court hearing a suit possesses the inherent power under Order XIII Rule 3 to reject documents deemed irrelevant or inadmissible, provided it records the grounds for such rejection. India Law Library Docid # 2424779
(466) G.SREERAMULU AND OTHERS Vs. M.BABU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal for Enhancement of Compensation — Scope — Where an appeal is preferred solely by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), and the finding on negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability of the insurer is not challenged either by the insurer or owner through appeal or cross-objections, the scope of the appeal is confined only to the India Law Library Docid # 2424822
(467) SABBAVRAJPU SRINIVASA VARA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF AP[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Concurrent Findings — The High Court’s power under revisional jurisdiction is limited — It cannot act as a second appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, unless there is a manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity in findings, or gross miscarriage of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2424813
(468) THE SNAP GYM 24/7 LLP Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Disputed Questions of Fact — The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, such as the identity of the entity against which action is taken, the relationship between different entities operating in proximity, or the validity/extent of hypothecation over specific assets, as determination thereof requires evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2424814
(469) DR. C. PADMAVATHI (DIED). BY LRS Vs. DHULIPALA RAMACHANDRA RAO (DIED) BY LRS AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rules 3 & 11 — Substitution of Legal Representative in Appeal — Right to Sue Survives — Prevention of Abatement — Upon the death of a sole appellant, where the right to sue (or appeal) survives, the appeal does not abate if an application to bring the legal representative(s) on record is filed within the time prescribed by law (Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963) — The Court, upon such timely application, is obligated under Order XXII Rule 3 (read with Rule 1 India Law Library Docid # 2424820
(470) TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS Vs. M/S MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Section 18 & Chapter V — Arbitration Act, 1996 — Overriding Effect & Jurisdiction of Facilitation Council — Chapter V of the MSMED Act, 2006, has an overriding effect over the Arbitration Act, 1996 — Consequently, a party defined as a “supplier” under the MSMED Act is entitled to make a reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 for recovery of dues, notwithstanding the existence of an independent arbitration agreement betw India Law Library Docid # 2424807
(471) A.S.V. KRISHNAM RAJU (DEAD) Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 35 — Procedure and Powers of Appellate Tribunal — Applicability of CPC and Limitation Act — While Section 35(1) of the PMLA states the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) but guided by principles of natural justice, and Section 35(2) grants specific powers akin to a civil court, provisions like Order 22 CPC or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (prescribing 90 days for LR India Law Library Docid # 2424870
(472) V.S. RAYUDU AND OTHERS Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP BY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 — Regulation 8(1)(v) & 12 — Recovery of Pecuniary Loss — Procedure — Recovery from pay of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders, as provided under Regulation 8(1)(v), is a penalty — Imposition of such penalty requires mandatory adherence to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12, which includes informing the employee in writing India Law Library Docid # 2424875
(473) M/S. H.R.R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Impleadment of Third Parties in Appeal — Necessary and Proper Parties — Scope of Discretion — The Court possesses wide discretionary power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, exercisable at any stage including appeal, to implead any person whose presence is deemed necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit/appeal — This power aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, safeguard against injust India Law Library Docid # 2424878
(474) DR. C. PADMAVATHI (DIED). DR. C. SAILAJA Vs. DHULIPALA RAMACHANDRA RAO (DIED), SUSEELA MAHANTI (DIED) D.BHASKAR MAHANTI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rules 3 & 11 — Substitution of Legal Representative in Appeal — Right to Sue Survives — Upon the death of a sole appellant, where the right to sue (or appeal) survives, the appeal does not abate if an application to bring the legal representative(s) on record is filed within the period prescribed by law (Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963) — The Court is obligated, on such timely application, to cause the legal representative to be made a party and proceed wi India Law Library Docid # 2424883
(475) CONSTRUCCIONES Y AUXILIAR DE FERROCARRILES AND ANOTHER Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (INDIA)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 48 — Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award — Scope of Review — The scope of inquiry under Section 48 for refusal of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is extremely narrow — Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction, undertake a review on merits, or re-assess factual findings — Enforcement can be refused only on grounds specified in Section 48, applied strictly. India Law Library Docid # 2425006
(476) M/S PAVAN METALS REFINERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Scope of Inquiry — Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement — At the stage of deciding a petition under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator, the referral court’s inquiry is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and not other issues, including the merits or limitation period of the underlying claims. (In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements followed). India Law Library Docid # 2425007
(477) KOUSHALYA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Bank Account Freezing/Attachment — Effect of ED's Statement — Where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) informs the High Court that amounts lying in bank accounts (previously subject to debit freeze and/or provisional attachment) have been transferred to the ED and that no further debit freeze is required or operative, the High Court may dispose of appeals concerning the freeze by recording this position and directing the ED to communicate the same to the India Law Library Docid # 2425008
(478) VIRENDER KHANNA AND ASSOCIATES Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — For the purpose of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6), the Court is required only to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement — Objections regarding the capacity or authorization of a party to invoke arbitration are matters to be considered by the duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal. India Law Library Docid # 2425009
(479) SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Lis Pendens — Collusive Suit — The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to bar a transfer if the suit during the pendency of which the transfer occurs is found to be collusive — A suit filed with the apparent intent to defeat a known, impending transfer, especially when filed just before the transfer and followed by a compromise decree favouring the plaintiff without disclosing the transfer to the court, points towards collusion. India Law Library Docid # 2425023
(480) HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. ASHEESH VAID AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Scope of Inquiry — While adjudicating an application under Section 11(6), the Court’s role is primarily limited to examining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement — It is generally not supposed to delve into disputed questions of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2425024