ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
     Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator [on behalf of Appellant/Respondent]  

Latest Cases

(41) DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 304 Part II, 109, 120-B — Appeal against conviction for murder — Alteration of conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Absence of premeditation, motive, and undue advantage — Assault occurring on spur of the moment — Factors considered: nature of weapon, vital part of body, force employed, sudden quarrel, pre-meditation, prior enmity, provocation, heat of passion,
India Law Library Docid # 2432697

(42) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUGAN KHAN @ SHOKAT KHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/34 — Murder — Acquittal — Criminal Appeals — State's appeal against acquittal from murder charge — Accused convicted for lesser offences — Accused not liable for murder if death is due to intervening causes like septicemia, toxemia, delayed treatment, or medical complications, rather than direct act of accused — Prosecution must prove accused's act as direct and proximate cause of
India Law Library Docid # 2432698

(43) MOHD JAFFER SHEIKH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 10-09-2025
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8 — Preventive Detention — Grounds for detention — Detaining authority must inform the detenu of the time limit within which they can make a representation against the detention order, as this is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order
India Law Library Docid # 2432536

(44) AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376A, 363, 201; POCSO Act, 2012 — Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 — Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66C — Conviction for offences including murder and sexual assault — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Failure to establish motive, flaws in "last seen" theory, and doubts in scientific/DNA evidence — Accused acquitted.
India Law Library Docid # 2432553

(45) JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420 — Cheating — Ingredients of cheating require deception to dishonestly or fraudulently induce a person to deliver property or do/omit to do something causing harm. Mere deception without dishonest inducement is insufficient.
India Law Library Docid # 2432554

(46) VINOD KUMAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. SEESH RAM SAINI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Registration of FIR — Mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence — High Court can direct registration of FIR even if preliminary inquiry report suggests otherwise — Genuineness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration.
India Law Library Docid # 2432555

(47) CH. CHIRAG DIN Vs. ZEENAT CHOUHAN[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 10-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, Jammu & Kashmir — Section 482 — Quashing of proceedings — Rejection of closure report by Magistrate without applying judicial mind — Trial court rejected final closure report submitted by SIT and took cognizance of offences without proper consideration of evidence and legal aspects — Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind to the numerous investigation reports, inquiries, and witness
India Law Library Docid # 2432535

(48) SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Plea of Order II Rule 2 CPC — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of Order II Rule 2 CPC is impermissible as Order II Rule 2 is not one of the grounds enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11.
India Law Library Docid # 2432561

(49) RAM MURTI (SINCE DECEASED) NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS Vs. SHIV KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101, 102, 106 — Burden of Proof — Benami Transaction — The burden of proving that a sale is benami lies on the person alleging it. This requires more than just conjecture or surmise, necessitating concrete proof.
India Law Library Docid # 2432562

(50) XXXX CCL THR HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN GOBIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Bail of juvenile — Conditions for denial — Release of a juvenile on bail shall not be if there are reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice — Provisions intended for reformation but bail cannot be granted routinely, requiring consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case.
India Law Library Docid # 2432563

(51) ANKIT YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Bail of Juvenile — Conditions for denial of bail — “Ends of justice” — Release on bail is ordinarily mandated unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or def
India Law Library Docid # 2432564

(52) GURDHYAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. VIRENDRA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation for motor accident — Deceased was homemaker aged 59 years — Claimants contended that her notional income should be assessed as a skilled worker, citing Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Court accepted contention based on Supreme Court judgment
India Law Library Docid # 2432565

(53) DESH RAJ DHINGRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 10-09-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition — Petitioner sought release of land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on grounds of non-possession and non-payment of compensation — Petitioner had not raised any objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act against the acquisition —
India Law Library Docid # 2432566

(54) MAHA MINERAL MINING & BENEFICATION PVT. LTD. Vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Tender — Clause 5(D) — Past Experience Criteria — Bidder allowed to use past experience of previous Consortium or JV proportionate to its share — Not submitted JV agreement itself — Submission of work execution certificate stating proportionate share sufficient — NIT did not expressly mandate submission of JV agreement to prove proportionate share — Clarification could have been sought by tendering authority if doubt — Disqualification for non-submission of JV agreement not
India Law Library Docid # 2432514

(55) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SAJIB ROY[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14 and 335 — Public service recruitment — Reserved candidates availing age relaxation — Migration to unreserved category — Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars migration of SC/ST/OBC candidates who availed age relaxation from consideration against unreserved vacancies — High Court erred in applying Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119,
India Law Library Docid # 2432515

(56) RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS Vs. PREM CHAND KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Recruitment — Reserved Categories — Migration to Unreserved Category — Age and Physical Measurement Relaxation — Standing Order No. 85 dictates no migration if relaxation availed — Standing Order No. 78 permitted migration — Revised Directive No. 29 modified Standing Order No. 78 by applying Standing Order No. 85 — Where Standing Order No. 85 conflicts, it prevails — Those who
India Law Library Docid # 2432516

(57) SIDDHARTH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 35 — Professional misconduct — Expunction of remarks — High Court made adverse remarks against an Advocate for allegedly failing to disclose a relevant prior decision of a coordinate bench and implying that an Apex Court decision had overturned it — Advocate claimed omission was bona fide as he was not involved in the connected case where the prior decision was upheld, and
India Law Library Docid # 2432505

(58) DEEP NURSING HOME AND ANOTHER Vs. MANMEET SINGH MATTEWAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Allegations of Medical Negligence and Deficiency in Service against Nursing Home and Doctor — State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) finds negligence — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reverses part of SCDRC's findings and places liability on Doctor for antenatal care, exonerating the Nursing Home. Supreme Court allowed appeal.
India Law Library Docid # 2432506

(59) SMT. MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BIJAPUR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation claims — Quantum of compensation — Determination of income — High Court reduced income without reasoning — Court found established income of Rs. 6,000/- by Tribunal, but High Court reduced it to Rs. 5,500/- without justification — Deceased had diploma in Pharmacy, partnership in pharmaceutical distributorship, and association with cooperative bank — Although medical shop licence was cancelled, deceased's multifaceted business activities warra
India Law Library Docid # 2432507

(60) KISAN VITHOBA AAKHADE (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. SURESH TUKARAM NERKAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-09-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — High Court can interfere in second appeal if findings of lower courts are perverse — Reversal of concurrent findings of fact by the High Court was justified on grounds of perversity in appreciation of evidence.
India Law Library Docid # 2432508