ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(861) GANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYARE Vs. GANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRs AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 9 — Necessity of Proper Parties in a Suit — A court cannot grant relief in a civil suit if necessary parties, especially co-owners in a partition suit, are not impleaded.
India Law Library Docid # 2423555

(862) GOPAL PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — While a court cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet against a specific person, it has the power to differ from the police's final report, take cognizance of a crime, and summon individuals as accused — The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition against a High Court order that upheld a Magistrate's summoning of the petitioner as an accused after the police had submitted a final form not recommending trial — The Court clarified that althou
India Law Library Docid # 2423603

(863) RITESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Criminal Law — Bail — An anticipatory bail order should not contain a specific direction for the arrest of the accused upon the filing of a charge sheet; instead, the trial court should be left to consider bail afresh based on the materials presented — The Supreme Court modified a High Court order granting anticipatory bail which stipulated that the bail would lose effect upon the submission of a charge sheet and the trial court would take coercive steps to ensure the petitioner's custody — The
India Law Library Docid # 2423604

(864) THE JOINT SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. RAJ KUMAR MISHRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
A direct master-servant relationship established on paper is required for employment, and supervisory control alone is not enough — The Supreme Court allowed the CBSE's appeal, holding that a direct master-servant relationship must be established on paper to claim employment; supervisory control by the CBSE over the private respondents did not automatically make them employees — The High Court's order for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court was set aside.
India Law Library Docid # 2423662

(865) AKASH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 and 354(b) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Sections 9, 10 and 18 — Mere grabbing of breasts and attempting to drag a minor beneath a culvert, without further actions indicating a definitive intent to commit rape, is insufficient to constitute an attempt to rape under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act — The High Court in this criminal revision partly allowed the revision, modifying the summoning order aga
India Law Library Docid # 2423663

(866) TANVEER AHMAD KHAN Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 17-03-2025
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 and 21 — Grounds of detention under preventive detention laws must be clear, specific, and provide sufficient particulars to enable the detenue to make an effective representation against the detention order — Vague grounds that lack essential details vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and render the detention illegal — The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed a det
India Law Library Docid # 2423788

(867) AIJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. U.T. OF J&K & ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 17-03-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(5) — Unexplained delay in executing a preventive detention order throws doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, and non-supply of essential material relied upon for detention hinders the detenue’s right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention unsustainable — The High Court allowed a petition and quashed a detention order due to an unexplained delay of over nine months in its execution and the non
India Law Library Docid # 2423789

(868) CHET RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. MATI RAM @ MOTI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rule 4(2) — Legal representatives of a deceased defendant, already represented by a written statement, need to satisfy the court about the nature of any additional defence they seek to raise in an independent written statement under Order 22 Rule 4(2) — Petition challenging the dismissal of an application by legal representatives of a deceased defendant for filing an independent written statement was dismissed — The court held that while Order 22 Rule 4(2) a
India Law Library Docid # 2423806

(869) AJAY CHAUDHARY Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Application for compassionate appointment should be considered based on the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death — Writ petition was allowed, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization from the date of initial contractual appointment — The court directed the respondent corporation to regularize the petitioner with consequential benefits, holding that the case should have been considered under the compassionat
India Law Library Docid # 2423807

(870) RAMANDEEP KOUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 17-03-2025
Rehbar-e-Khel Scheme — The eligibility criterion of “hailing from a concerned Physical Education Zone” for the Rehbar-e-Khel scheme does not necessitate actual and physical residence in that zone but rather belonging to that area, and the writ court’s judgment upholding a selection based on this interpretation was legally sound — The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge’s order that had upheld the selection of a candidate as Rehbar-e-Khel — The appellant ar
India Law Library Docid # 2423818

(871) KAMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Specific Performance — In a Regular Second Appeal against concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for specific performance, the High Court’s scope for interference is limited — Where both lower courts, upon appreciation of evidence, have arrived at findings regarding execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff
India Law Library Docid # 2423943

(872) LACHHMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32(1) — Oral Dying Declaration — Reliability and Admissibility — An oral dying declaration made by the deceased shortly before succumbing to injuries, naming the assailant, can form the basis of conviction if found truthful and reliable — Where deceased was found injured, stated appellant No.1 shot him to his father and nephew, and succumbed shortly thereafter while being shifted, the statement constitutes a valid oral dying declaration — Reliability established when
India Law Library Docid # 2423944

(873) M/S. LAVENDER INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. NISHIT BADOLA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Letters Patent Appeal — Ex Parte Order — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Impugned common ex parte order passed by Single Judge in writ petition adversely affecting substantial rights of appellants (directing taking over/sale of properties claimed by them) — Appellants admittedly not parties to the underlying writ petition and not heard before passing the order — Such ex parte orders affecting rights of non-parties are violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable, warranti
India Law Library Docid # 2423983

(874) M/S. VALLABH CORPORATION Vs. SMS INDIA PVT. LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Section 18 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Interplay — Overriding Effect — MSME Act, 2006 is a special law enacted subsequent to the A&C Act, 1996 and its provisions, particularly those in Chapter V (including Section 18), prevail over the general provisions of the A&C Act concerning disputes between MSME suppliers and buyers — Section 18 mandates a specific mechanism of reference to the Facilitation Council, fol
India Law Library Docid # 2423984

(875) AHMED RAZA Vs. NITISH JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope — Unambiguous Admission in Pleadings and by Counsel — Where defendant filed a written statement accompanied by its own statement of accounts clearly acknowledging a specific sum as due and payable to the plaintiff, and subsequently defendant's counsel, in the defendant's presence before the court, explicitly stated that defendant did not wish to file a reply to plaintiff's O-XII R-6 application and conceded that the a
India Law Library Docid # 2423985

(876) SUDESH CHHIKARA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 410 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 450 — Power of Chief Judicial/Metropolitan Magistrate — Withdrawal vs. Transfer of Cases — Scope and Nature — The power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) under Section 410 Cr.P.C. / Section 450 BNSS is primarily administrative in nature, enabling withdrawal or recall of cases previously "made over" by the CJM/CMM to a subordinate Magistrate for
India Law Library Docid # 2423988

(877) MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Waqf Act, 1995 — Section 14(1) — Composition of State Waqf Board — Eligibility of Bar Council Member — Continuation in Office — The requirement under Section 14(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, that the State Waqf Board shall consist of, inter alia, Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union Territory, establishes a mandatory eligibility criterion — Consequently, a person elected or nominated to the Waqf Board under this category can continue to hold the position only as long as
India Law Library Docid # 2423999

(878) RANJIT SARKAR Vs. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 256 — Acquittal for Complainant’s Non-appearance — Conditions Precedent — Purpose of Listing — Acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) CrPC upon the complainant's non-appearance is permissible only if (i) the summons was issued on complaint, (ii) the date was appointed specifically for the appearance of the accused (or a subsequent date to which the hearing was adjourned for that purpose), (iii) the complainant fails to appear on such date, and (iv)
India Law Library Docid # 2424051

(879) M/S.UTTAM RICE MILL, DHAMTARI Vs. M/S.ASHOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-03-2025
Equity — Conduct of Litigant — Vigilance and Promptness — Entitlement to Relief — A litigant, particularly a decree-holder in execution proceedings, who displays prolonged lethargy, passivity, consistent absence, negligence, and a lackadaisical approach over several years, demonstrates non-diligent conduct — Such conduct, which allows the litigant's cause to suffer due to their own inaction, is not condonable and disentitles them from claiming any equitable relief from the court — Vigilance and
India Law Library Docid # 2424052

(880) DHARAM SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2) — Bail Appeal — Maintainability of Subsequent Appeal against Same Order — A subsequent or repeat criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, challenging the very same order of the Special Court/Exclusive Special Court which refused bail, is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first appeal preferred against that specific order, irrespective of whether the subs
India Law Library Docid # 2424129