ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(621) STATE Vs. JAVED KHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal Against Acquittal — Scope of Interference — Principles — An appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, must adhere to established principles: (i) acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; (ii) evidence must be comprehensively reappreciated; (iii) if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should ordinarily prevail; (iv) if the trial court’s view is legally plausible, mere p
India Law Library Docid # 2425386

(622) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER Vs. LACHU @ LAXMI NARAYAN[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
M.P. Prisoner’s Release on Probation Act, 1954 — Section 2 & Rule 11 (M.P. Prisoner’s Release on Probation Rules, 1964) — Effect of Setting Aside Release Order in LPA — Bonafide Belief of Licence Continuance — Where a writ petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to L.I., was released on probation by a Single Bench order, and this order was subsequently set aside in an L.P.A. directing him to surrender, his continued absence from prison cannot be deemed as part of the period of
India Law Library Docid # 2425533

(623) CUREWIN HYLICO PHARMA PVT. LTD. Vs. CUREWIN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Institution of Suit — Proper Valuation and Court Fees — Pre-institutional Mediation — A commercial suit is considered ‘duly instituted’ only after proper valuation, payment of requisite ad valorem court fees, and, where applicable (if no urgent interim relief is sought), exhaustion of the remedy of pre-institutional mediation as per Section 12-A of the Act — Until these conditions are met, the Commercial Court may not have full jurisdiction to proceed, and summons t
India Law Library Docid # 2425534

(624) SHIVANI AND OTHERS Vs. BHERULAL AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) — Filing of Counter-Claim — After Written Statement — A counter-claim is not barred from being filed merely because the defendant has already filed their written statement — Rule 6-A(1) requires that the cause of action for the counter-claim must have accrued to the defendant before the defendant delivered their defence or before the time limited for delivering the defence expired — The court, in its discretion, may allow a counter-claim to be fil
India Law Library Docid # 2425535

(625) 63 IDEAS INFOLABS PVT. LTD. (TRADENAME NINJAKART) Vs. M/S MORE TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Consideration — An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto — The court cannot consider allegations made by the defendant in their written statement or in the application for rejection itself — If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action, it cannot be rejected under this provisi
India Law Library Docid # 2425536

(626) S.C. NARANG Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75 — Cruelty to Child — Liability of school’s managing committee chairman — Essential ingredient under first part of Section 75 is that accused must have actual charge of, or control over, the victim child — Chairman of the managing committee of a school running classes from KG to 12th standard does not have the actual charge of all the children nor control over every child studying in the school
India Law Library Docid # 2425736

(627) ROSHAN LAL BHARDWAJ Vs. ASHOK SUD AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 14(3)(c), Proviso — Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement for re-building/re-construction — Tenant’s right of re-entry — Scope and limitations — Proviso to Section 14(3)(c) grants right of re-entry only upon mutual agreement on new tenancy terms in a re-built building; requires presence of a re-built building and mutual agreement on new terms of tenancy for invocation — No evidence of
India Law Library Docid # 2425891

(628) USHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 145(1)(c) — Suspension of Pradhan — Validity — Allegations of illegalities and irregularities — Preliminary inquiry conducted, show cause notice issued, reply found unsatisfactory, leading to suspension — Suspension order issued following
India Law Library Docid # 2425892

(629) DHARAM PRAKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. BABA JANG BAHADUR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 24(5) — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope under three Rent Control Acts (including H.P. Rent Act) similar, though wording varies — Wider than Section 115 CPC; not as wide as appellate power — Not a cloak for appeal in disguise — Rehearing of original issues impermissible
India Law Library Docid # 2425899

(630) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. USMANKHANJI SAHIDKHANJI DAYMA[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Criminal Appeal (acquittal) — Scope of interference — Appellate Court’s power is coextensive with trial court, can review and reappreciate evidence — No limitation on exercise of such power — Can reach own conclusions on facts and law — Expressions like ‘substantial and compelling reasons’ are ‘flourishes of language’, not curtailing power — However, in acquittal appeals, there is a ‘double presumption’ of innocence in favour of the accused — I
India Law Library Docid # 2426101

(631) MALI KAPURJI VAGHAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1(u) — Appeal from Order — Nature of — Appeal against judgment and decree of appellate court remanding matter to trial court after joining State as party — Scope of appellate review under Order 43 Rule 1(u) involves examining whether the impugned order is erroneous, perverse, or arbitrary and if an error of law was committed in remanding the matter for fresh consideration
India Law Library Docid # 2426102

(632) RAVINDRA NATUBHAI PATEL Vs. SATISHBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 — Section 31(3) & (7) — Election disputes — Panchayat elections — Challenge to election result — Recounting of votes — Statutory framework mandates “inquiry” under Section 31(3) before ordering recount under Section 31(7)(b) — Tribunal’s power to scrutinize and compute votes under Section 31(7)(b) is dependent upon satisfactory inquiry and sufficient material/evidence presented — Bare allegations in election petition or small margin of victory
India Law Library Docid # 2426103

(633) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHANA ARJAN VEDVA VAGHARI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Appeal against acquittal — Principles governing interference — Appellate Court has full power to review evidence but should be reluctant to interfere with acquittal unless conclusions are palpably wrong, based on erroneous law, or lead to grave injustice — Interference is not justified if trial court’s view of evidence is possible, even if appellate court might take a different view
India Law Library Docid # 2426104

(634) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BHUPEN BHUYAN AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeals — Challenge to Judgment and Award — Re-assessment of compensation under Section 166 where claim was converted from Section 166 to Section 163A — Appellant Insurer challenged compensation under various heads including physical pain, earning capacity, disability, and legal representatives’ ability to claim under Section 163A
India Law Library Docid # 2426203

(635) B.S YEDDIYURAPPA Vs. A. ALAM PASHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 17A — Prior Approval for Investigation — Relevant Considerations — What are the specific factors and criteria that the appropriate authority or government must consider under Section 17A of the PC Act before granting approval for the police to initiate any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant concerning acts related to their official functions or duties?
India Law Library Docid # 2424851

(636) ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF Vs. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) — Section 11(3), 11(4) & Section 5A — Powers of Competent Authority — Deemed Conveyance — Nature of Proceedings — Scope of Enquiry — Adjudication of Title — Proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA for issuance of a certificate for deemed conveyance are summary in nature, as indicated by the MOFA Rules (Rule 13(5) prohibiting cross-examination) —
India Law Library Docid # 2424852

(637) ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED) Vs. ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 31 — Approval of Resolution Plan — Effect on Claims — Extinguishment — Binding Nature — ‘Clean Slate’ Principle — Once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under Section 31 of the IBC, it is binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors (including central/state government, local authorities, operational creditors), guarantors, and other stakeholders — Upon such approval, all claims, including
India Law Library Docid # 2424853

(638) LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Review — Power to Modify Award — Severability — The scope of interference by a Court under Section 34 or in appeal under Section 37 is limited — Following the precedent in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1, courts do not possess the power to modify an arbitral award; the “limited remedy” is only to set aside the award, either wholly or partially if severable, under the specified grounds — The Appellate
India Law Library Docid # 2424854

(639) VINOD BOOB Vs. DODBALLAUR SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Special Leave Petition — Disposal by Consent Order — Where a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the complainant challenging the High Court's order setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-respondents under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of a consensual order agreed upon by the parties, detailing specific payment terms.
India Law Library Docid # 2424855

(640) SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 26(1), Proviso and Section 11 — Date for Determination of Market Value — Mandatory Requirement — The proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lays down a mandatory requirement, emphasized by the use of the word ‘shall’, that the market value of land acquired under the Act must be determined as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 — Thi
India Law Library Docid # 2424856