ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(521) KEWAL SINGH KANG AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Liberal Approach vs. Negligence & Lack of Bona Fides — While Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers courts to condone delay upon demonstration of “sufficient cause” and generally calls for a liberal, justice-oriented approach, this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or to revive stale claims where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is apparent — The acceptability of the explanation, not merely the len
India Law Library Docid # 2424173

(522) MOHAMMAD SALIM AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL KAYYUM AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 1A(3) — Registration Act, 1908 — Sections 17 & 49 Proviso — Admissibility of Unregistered Partition Deed — Collateral Purpose — While Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC requires a defendant to produce documents relied upon with the written statement, and mandates leave of court for later production, such leave may be granted even at a subsequent stage — An unregistered partition deed, though compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and in
India Law Library Docid # 2424174

(523) VIJAY PAL YADAV Vs. MAMTA SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 41(1)(b)(ii) — Arrest — Safeguards — Police Conduct — Rights of Accused — The law requires that even individuals accused of offenses must be treated in accordance with legal procedures, ensuring the protection of their person and dignity — Evident high-handedness by police during investigation, potentially flouting safeguards concerning arrest as outlined in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2014) 8 SCC 73, and involving allegations of physical abuse,
India Law Library Docid # 2424203

(524) KAMAL MEENA Vs. STATE[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7, Section 13 — Essential Ingredients — Demand and Acceptance — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — To sustain a conviction under Section 7 (read with Section 13) of the PC Act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the twin essential ingredients: (i) demand of illegal gratification by the accused public servant, and (ii) subsequent acceptance of the same by the accused — This proof can be based on direct evidence
India Law Library Docid # 2424157

(525) TEJARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) — Section 17A — Requirement of Prior Approval for Investigation — Stage of Challenge — Framing of Charge — The requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for obtaining previous approval from the competent authority before conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into an offence alleged against a public servant relatable to official functions or duties, while mandatory for initiating such acti
India Law Library Docid # 2424166

(526) JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 22-C(8) — Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 135 — Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat — Offence of Electricity Theft — The jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is expressly barred by Section 22-C(8) from deciding any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law — Where the dispute arises
India Law Library Docid # 2424223

(527) PRAHLAD SAHAI MEENA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ADMN. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 26-03-2025
Service Law — Regularization — Consideration Pursuant to Final Court Orders — Estoppel — Educational Qualification — After judicial directions to consider an employee’s case for regularization attain finality (having been upheld up to the Supreme Court), the employer is precluded from denying or withdrawing regularization by belatedly invoking the employee’s alleged lack of prescribed educational qualifications as an afterthought, especially where this ground was not raised during previous exten
India Law Library Docid # 2424210

(528) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 26-03-2025
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 — Sections 9, 10 & 15 — Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts — Barred — Where proceedings for eviction from public premises are initiated by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971, Section 15 explicitly bars the jurisdiction of any court, including Revenue Courts established under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, to entertain any suit or proceeding challenging the eviction order — The exclusive remedy against an order passed by the Estat
India Law Library Docid # 2424258

(529) SACHIN DHONDIRAM CHAVAN Vs. TRUPTI SACHIN CHAVAN[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13-B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Withdrawal of Consent — Distinction between Original and Converted Petitions — A distinction exists regarding the unilateral withdrawal of consent in petitions for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — While consent can generally be withdrawn unilaterally in a petition originally filed under Section 13-B until the decree is passed, the situation differs if the petition was initially
India Law Library Docid # 2424278

(530) MORRIES ENERGIES LIMITED Vs. SUMIT AGARWAL AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 141 — Vicarious Liability of Directors/Officers — Requirements — For fastening vicarious liability on a director or officer of a company accused of an offence under Section 138, the complainant must establish that such person falls under either sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 141 — Sub-section (1) requires the person to be “in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company” at the time the offence
India Law Library Docid # 2424298

(531) SMT. S.SAVITHRAMMA Vs. SMT.S.PADMAVATHAMMA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 85 — Presumption as to Powers of Attorney — Execution and Authentication by Notary Public — Section 85 creates a mandatory presumption (“shall presume”) regarding the due execution and authentication of a document purporting to be a power of attorney, provided it is executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public (or other specified authorities) — Once the original notarized power of attorney is produced, the burden shifts to the party disputing its validity to
India Law Library Docid # 2424356

(532) CHIF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (PS & CATG) SOUTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS Vs. NILANJANA SINHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-03-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Railways – Denial of Concession to Differently-Abled Person – Disability Certificate – The denial of a 50% rail fare concession by one Railway reservation office (Howrah) to a differently-abled person (Mongolian baby, 75% disability) and her escort, citing non-mentioning of the specific nature of handicap and overwriting on the Disability Certificate, constitutes deficiency in service, especially when another reservation office (Azimganj) u
India Law Library Docid # 2424491

(533) N.S. KRISHNAMOORTHI AND OTHERS Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Land Law — Grama Natham — Nature and Ownership — Occupied vs. Unoccupied — Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905) — Section 2 — Grama Natham land, historically set apart for village habitation, does not automatically vest with the Government under Section 2 of Act III of 1905 if it is occupied as a house-site or backyard — Such occupied Natham, where occupation has been longstanding and recognized through transactions, is considered the private property of the occupant — Only u
India Law Library Docid # 2424458

(534) SONIKA AND OTHERS Vs. MAHENDER NATH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-03-2025
Motor Accident Compensation — Assessment of Income — Prospective Income from Confirmed Job Offer — Where the deceased had secured a confirmed job offer (Sailor in Indian Navy) with a defined higher salary prior to the fatal accident, the compensation for loss of dependency should be calculated based on this prospective income, rather than the lower income from his temporary private employment at the time of death
India Law Library Docid # 2424537

(535) T.C. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR (DIED) Vs. BIJU RAMESH AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 59 — Suit to Cancel or Set Aside Instrument — Commencement of Limitation Period for Executant — For a suit seeking cancellation or setting aside of an instrument (or a declaration that it is sham, which is akin to setting aside) governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period is three years — When the suit is filed by the executant of the instrument, the time from which the period begins to run (“when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have th
India Law Library Docid # 2424587

(536) A.K. SAMSUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTEHRS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 3 — Offence of Money Laundering — Continuing Offence — Article 20(1) Constitution of India, 1950 — Retrospectivity — The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is a continuing offence — Criminal proceedings under Section 3 are maintainable even if the predicate (scheduled) offence was committed before the PMLA came into force or before the specific predicate offence was included in the Schedule to the PMLA, provided that
India Law Library Docid # 2424588

(537) PUSHKAR JAMNERKAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 200, 202 & 482 — Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471 — Quashing of Complaint — Abuse of Process of Law — Circumvention of Arbitral Award — Criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 alleging forgery etc. concerning a manuscript dated 17.05.2013 — Complaint filed after an Arbitral Tribunal (London) had already adjudicated upon the admissibility, relevancy, proof, and alleged markings on the same manuscript, finding no dishonest markings, and passed a fi
India Law Library Docid # 2424607

(538) KALICHARAN MANDAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 26-03-2025
Land Law — Encroachment on Government Land — Public Project (Solar Power Plant) — Relocation and Rehabilitation — Balancing of Interests — Petitioners, acknowledged as encroachers on Government land earmarked for a State solar power project, challenged High Court order permitting the project's commencement — High Court had balanced interests by allowing the project while protecting petitioners from eviction based on State/Corporation undertaking — Supreme Court upheld the High Court's approach,
India Law Library Docid # 2424652

(539) SUNHER PUDO AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Unlawful Assembly — Vicarious Liability in Naxal Attack — In cases involving offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly, such as a Naxalite attack resulting in murder, Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability — Proof that an accused was present as a member of the unlawful assembly sharing the common object (which can be inferred from circumstances like being armed, presence near the scene, and collective actions like shouting slogans post-incident)
India Law Library Docid # 2424684

(540) BHANU PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2020 — Section 4(1) — Appointment at the Pleasure of Government — Removal — Where an appointment to a statutory post, such as Chairperson or Member of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, is explicitly made “during the pleasure of the State Government” as per Section 4(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2020, and the appointment order itself reflects this condition, the holder of the office can be removed at any time by the Government
India Law Library Docid # 2424698