ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(801) GAURAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 20, and 29 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, particularly not to be granted in cases involving serious economic offences like those under the NDPS Act, especially when there is incriminating material and the need for custodial interrogation — Petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act for recovery of a commercial quantity of opium and char
India Law Library Docid # 2423805

(802) VIRENDER SINGH Vs. M/S. DARSHANA TRADING CO. THR. ITS PROP. SANJAY SETH (DEAD) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-03-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) — Explanation – ‘Consumer’ – ‘Commercial Purpose’ vs. ‘Self-Employment’ – Expansion of Existing Business – Employment of Workmen – The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his consumer complaint regarding defective machinery (Laser Cutting & Bending Machine) on the ground that he was not a ‘consumer’ as the purchase was for a ‘commercial purpose’ — He argued the machine was used exclusively for earning livelihood by ‘self-employment’, invoking th
India Law Library Docid # 2423922

(803) STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. AALAMGIR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 18-03-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Deemed Lapse of Acquisition – Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by Indore Development Authority – Consequence — Where the High Court allowed writ petitions and declared land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying solely on the interpretation
India Law Library Docid # 2423924

(804) RAM KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Plaintiff challenging Will alleging forgery and pleading lack of knowledge until recent event — Defendants asserting earlier knowledge and limitation bar — Held, when plaintiff specifically pleads lack of knowledge of the allegedly forged Will and subsequent transfer until a specific recent event triggering the cause of action, the determination of the actual date
India Law Library Docid # 2423945

(805) MAHENDER AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S ELITE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Correction of Board Resolution details — After commencement of trial — Plaintiff inadvertently pleaded and annexed wrong Board Resolution (authorizing suit for different property) — Sought amendment to substitute correct Resolution and date — Held, such an amendment seeking correction of an error/oversight regarding the specific authorization document (Board Resolution) is a curable defect and formal in nature — It does not
India Law Library Docid # 2423946

(806) BALWINDER SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Contract Act, 1872 — Section 2(d), 25 — Agreement to Sell (Farokhatnama) — Consideration — Cheque Dishonour — Effect — Suit for declaration that unregistered agreement is void — Consideration cheque dishonoured — Defendant’s plea of subsequent cash payment disbelieved by First Appellate Court based on evidence appreciation — Held, upon dishonour of consideration cheque and failure to prove alternative payment, the agreement fails for want of consideration — Unregistered agreement does not confer
India Law Library Docid # 2423947

(807) SURJIT SINGH ALIAS TIKKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 52A(1) & (2) — Sampling and Inventory Certification — Procedure — Samples drawn at spot by police — Inventory prepared, presented along with case property and seals to Duty Magistrate, who compared and certified inventory as correct — Held, distinguishing Mohanlal (2016(1) RCR (Cri) 858) and relying on Bharat Aambale (2025 SCC
India Law Library Docid # 2423948

(808) HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Sections 21, 22 — Jurisdiction of District Magistrate/Tribunal — Eviction of Children/Relatives — Requirement of Ownership — Held, the jurisdiction vested in the authorities under the 2007 Act to direct eviction of children/relatives is contingent upon the senior citizen applicant being the owner of the property in question — The Act’s provisions, aimed at protecting the life and property of senior citizens, apply to property own
India Law Library Docid # 2423949

(809) SURJIT KAUR Vs. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Fatal Accident — Enhancement — Deceased Bachelor aged 23 years — Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (5 instead of 18) and incorrect deduction for personal expenses (1/3 instead of 1/2) — Failed to award future prospects and conventional heads — Held, applying principles laid down in Sarla Verma (2009) and Pranay Sethi (2017), multiplier of 18 applicable for age group 21-25; deduction for personal expenses for bachelor is 1/2;
India Law Library Docid # 2423950

(810) NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Unilateral Appointment Clause — Validity — Where an arbitration clause empowers one party's representative to appoint a sole arbitrator, such a clause pertaining to the unilateral appointment mechanism is legally invalid and unenforceable, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760 and Central Organisation for Railways
India Law Library Docid # 2423978

(811) WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against Order under Section 17 — Scope of Interference — The scope of judicial interference in an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) against an interlocutory order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 is extremely limited and even narrower than the restrictive scope under Section 34 — The appellate court does not sit in appeal over the arbitrator's findings
India Law Library Docid # 2423979

(812) MS HIMALAYAN FLORA AND AROMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UTTAR PRADESH IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 15A — Statement of Truth — Non-filing with Written Statement — Nature of Defect — Following the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 636), the non-filing of a mandatory Statement of Truth, as required under Order VI Rule 15A CPC, along with a pleading in a commercial suit, is a curable defect and does not, by itself, render the filing of the pleading non-est — The reasoning
India Law Library Docid # 2423981

(813) SHABANA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 79(3)(b) — Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — Rules 3(1)(d), 3(1)(j), 4 — Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) Requests to Intermediaries — Timelines and Cooperation — In the context of LEAs seeking user information from IT Intermediaries for investigation purposes, particularly in urgent matters like missing persons, bomb threats, or serious crimes, the maximum timeline of 72 hours prescribed under Rule
India Law Library Docid # 2423982

(814) MRS MEENA VOHRA Vs. MASTER HOSTS PVT LTD. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(i) — “Commercial Dispute” — Ordinary Transactions of Merchants, Bankers, Financiers, Traders — Mercantile Documents — Interpretation — For a dispute to qualify as a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, two cumulative conditions must be met: (1) it must arise out of “ordinary transactions” of or between merchants, bankers
India Law Library Docid # 2424016

(815) HARMANPREET KAUR DHIR Vs. PRITAM SINGH BHATIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) — Partition Suit — Pleading Requirements — Triable Issue — An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires the Court to examine only the averments in the plaint, assuming them to be true — While mere bald assertions of the existence of an HUF and coparcenary rights are insufficient post the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a plaint cannot be rejected
India Law Library Docid # 2424017

(816) PRASHANT GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376, 107, 109 — Rape and Abetment — Liability of Woman — While Section 376 IPC defines the offence of rape as being committed by 'a man', thereby excluding women from committing the act of rape itself, a woman can be held criminally liable for the distinct offence of abetment of rape under Section 109 IPC if she intentionally aids, instigates, or conspires in the commission of rape by a man, as per the definition of abetment in Section 107 IPC. (Paras 7, 8)
India Law Library Docid # 2424127

(817) SMT. BINDU AND ANOTHER Vs. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 18-03-2025
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Schedule I, Rules 40, 41, 44, 45 & 47 — Challenge to Sale of Immovable Property — Limitation and Remedy — Under the procedure for sale of immovable property prescribed in Schedule I of the MPLRC, 1959, a challenge to the sale by depositing sums (Rule 40) or on grounds of material irregularity/mistake causing substantial injury (Rule 41) must be made by application to the Revenue Officer within thirty days from the date of sale — Once this period expires w
India Law Library Docid # 2424128

(818) JASNATH SWAMI AND ANOTHER Vs. BHEEKNATH AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 r/w Section 107 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — Proximate Act & Mens Rea — For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, through a positive act or illegal omission, instigated or intentionally aided the commission of suicide — Such act must be proximate to the event of suicide and demonstrate a clear mens rea to push the deceased into such a situation where they are left with no other
India Law Library Docid # 2424170

(819) DEVI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Section 6 — Restrictions on Imprisonment of Offenders under Twenty-One Years of Age — Mandatory Nature — Section 6 of the Act imposes a mandatory restriction on courts sentencing persons under 21 years of age (at the time of the offence) convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment (but not life imprisonment) — The court shall not sentence such an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances (including offence nature
India Law Library Docid # 2424159

(820) BHUNDA RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Quashing of FIR — Dispute Primarily Civil in Nature — Abuse of Process — Where the fundamental dispute between parties pertains to rights, title, or possession over immovable property and is essentially civil in nature, initiating criminal proceedings by lodging an FIR alleging offences like cheating, forgery, trespass, etc., arising from the same property transaction, can constitute an abuse of the process of law — The High Court, in
India Law Library Docid # 2424161