(981) M/S. NALGONDA DISTRICT RICE MILLERS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 11-03-2025 Food Supply — Fortified Rice (FRK) — Quality Control — Surprise Inspections Authority — Government agencies and designated authorities acting under established Operational Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) possess the authority to conduct periodic and surprise inspections at storage depots and other points in the supply chain to monitor and ensure the quality standards of fortified rice intended for public distribution systems (TPDS) India Law Library Docid # 2424762
(982) SHEFALI MALLICK Vs. DURGA CHAKRABORTY (RAKSHIT), SINCE DECEASED, HER LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES SRI KRISHNENDU CHAKRABORTY AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 11-03-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 59 — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 31 — Suit for Declaration/Partition Impugning Registered Deed — Necessity of Seeking Cancellation/Declaration — Starting Point of Limitation — Where a registered instrument (a partition deed) casts a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title and stands in the way of granting reliefs like declaration of shares and partition, a prayer to have the instrument adjudged void or voidable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is manda India Law Library Docid # 2425168
(983) MMTC LIMITED Vs. M/S. R. PRIYARELALL IRON & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 11-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 378(4) & Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 — Condonation of Delay in Seeking Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal — Sufficient Cause — Government Enterprise — While considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC, the court exercises discretionary power based on the “sufficiency of cause” shown — Although government organizations are generall India Law Library Docid # 2425169
(984) GUDLA HYMAVATHI(DIED) PER LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. BYRI VENKATA SIVAPRASAD AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Enhancement of Compensation — Appellate court's power, under Section 173 to enhance the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), even when the claimants have not filed a separate appeal or cross-objections — The court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others held that if the awarded compensation is not just and reasonable based on the evidence and settled legal principles, the appellate court can exerci India Law Library Docid # 2423379
(985) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DALIMON BEWA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Motor Accident Claims — Causation of Death in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims — The central contention of the appeal is whether the death of ‘S’ on 27.01.2014 was a direct result of the injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident that occurred on 31.12.2012 — The appellant/insurance company argues that there is no sufficient evidence linking the accident to the death, which occurred approximately one year and 26 days later India Law Library Docid # 2423431
(986) FIROJA KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Challenging Order of Foreigners' Tribunal — The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal declaring her a foreigner — The writ court can review the findings of the Tribunal if they are perverse, not based on evidence, or involve an error of law apparent on the record. However, India Law Library Docid # 2423432
(987) MD. ALIMUDDIN Vs. MD. DALU MIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — The appellant preferred a second appeal under Section 100 challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, and the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta — The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law — The High Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as it would in a first appeal under Section 96 CPC — The existence of a India Law Library Docid # 2423433
(988) SMT. GOURI DEBNATH (PODDER) AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 96 and 49 — The power to grant anticipatory bail, now under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, is an extraordinary power that should be exercised cautiously, but it can be invoked even after the issuance of an arrest warrant in extreme, exceptional cases where there are grounds to believe the person is falsely implicated or will not misuse their liberty, and where not granting it would cause a miscarriage of j India Law Library Docid # 2423473
(989) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. LUCKNOW THRU. ASSTT. MANAGER Vs. GAURAV SHARMA AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 10-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 163A and 166 — Merely mentioning a wrong provision in a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act is not fatal if the substance of the claim is discernible and the court’s aim is to deliver justice — The court held that the misquotation of Section 163-A instead of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not fatal, emphasizing that courts should focus on the merits of the claim and dispense justice rather than adhering strictly to technicalities — It als India Law Library Docid # 2423693
(990) SURYA LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 10-03-2025 U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 — Sections 5 and 10 — Under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the validity of sale deeds executed before January 24, 1971, cannot generally be inquired into by the Prescribed Authority — This writ petition challenges orders related to the declaration of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act — The court considered the argument that the lower courts erred in not considering evidence related to India Law Library Docid # 2423694
(991) DAMNI RAJRAH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 10-03-2025 Service Law — Contractual employment does not confer a vested right to continued service, and its termination upon expiry of the agreed period is permissible if lawful and not violating any legal provision — The High Court dismissed a writ petition by contractual employees of temporary COVID-19 hospitals challenging their disengagement, affirming that contractual employment lacks a right to permanency beyond the contract terms. India Law Library Docid # 2423781
(992) ARUN THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed contractual claims involving recovery of money from the State, especially when alternative remedies like civil suits or arbitration are available — The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by contractors seeking payment of dues from the State, observing that the claims involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and that the petiti India Law Library Docid # 2423852
(993) RAVI KUMAR Vs. SHAKTI CHOLIA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 and 139 — Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — Section 19 — An order dismissing an application for leading additional evidence in a criminal proceeding is generally considered an interlocutory order and is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure — The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition against a trial court's order that refused to adm India Law Library Docid # 2423853
(994) NIRAT SINGH Vs. SITA DEVI AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 An appellate court can overturn a trial court's acquittal if the judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable view other than the accused's guilt is possible — The High Court dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a case of alleged assault and criminal intimidation, finding that the trial court had taken a reasonable view based on inconsistencies in the complainant's case, delay in filing the complaint, the doubtful nature of chance wit India Law Library Docid # 2423854
(995) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. POONAM AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 2, Order 41 Rule 3(3) and Order 41 Rule 27 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Additional evidence at the appellate stage is only permitted under specific conditions, including the inability to produce it earlier despite due diligence, or if the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment — The High Court dismissed an application by an insurance company to present additional evidence (driving license verification report) in an appeal against a motor acci India Law Library Docid # 2423855
(996) R.R. RANA Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Service Law — Retrospective Promotion — Retrospective promotion is generally not granted, and promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, especially when the delay is due to pending litigation and no malafide intent is proven against the employer — The High Court dismissed a petition seeking retrospective promotion to the post of Labour Officer from 2002 (when a vacancy arose) instead of 2005 (when the petitioner was actually promoted), holding that the delay was attributable to the India Law Library Docid # 2423856
(997) RAM SARUP @ SARUP @ RAM SWAROOP AND OTHERS Vs. JASWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 — Suit for Possession by Dispossessed Person — Scope and Requirements — Suit filed by plaintiffs (widow and children of pre-deceased son) against defendants (father-in-law, mother-in-law, etc.) for recovery of possession of a residential portion from which they were allegedly dispossessed — Held — The primary requirements for a suit under Section 6 are: (i) the plaintiff must have been in possession of the immovable property, and (ii) the plaintiff must have India Law Library Docid # 2423933
(998) BIR SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 (Proviso) — Amendment of Plaint — After Commencement of Trial — Due Diligence — Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction concerning construction on land — After evidence of both parties concluded and the case reached the arguments stage, plaintiff sought amendment to substitute Khasra No. 121/3 with Khasra No. 121/1, based on a demarcation report obtained in separate writ India Law Library Docid # 2423934
(999) PREM SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Attestation — Examination of Attesting Witnesses — Mandatory Requirement — Suit for declaration of title and possession, contesting the validity of a Will — One of the two attesting witnesses was alive and available, but not examined by the propounder of the Will — Lower courts held the Will proved based on the testimony of the scribe — India Law Library Docid # 2423935
(1000) BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 A. Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 15(2) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Exclusion of Notice Period — Computation of Limitation — Suit against Government/Public Officer — Mandatory Exclusion — Where a suit against the Government or a public officer requires a mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC prior to its institution, the period of such notice (two months) must be excluded under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when computing the overall limitation period for filing the India Law Library Docid # 2423936