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

(741) HARISH MADHAN Vs. KSHEMA POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE CO. PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 — Section 65-B — Refund of Court Fees — Conditions for Refund — Where a dispute is settled between parties through modes of settlement specified in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff is entitled to a certificate for refund of court fees paid on the plaint.
India Law Library Docid # 2428733

(742) NARPAT SINGH Vs. BHANWAR SINGH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Civil Court Procedure — Admissibility of Secondary Evidence — Section 60, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Plaintiff sought to place a photocopy of a Will on record as secondary evidence after the original was allegedly in the defendant's possession and could not be produced — Trial court rejected the application, citing defendant's denial of possession, ongoing FIR for forgery, and lack of proof of loss or destruction of the original — High Court set aside the trial court's
India Law Library Docid # 2428734

(743) KAILASHI AND OTHERS Vs. AMBA LAL AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — A second appeal is not a matter of right but lies only on a substantial question of law. The High Court cannot expand the scope of the appeal beyond what is permitted by statute.
India Law Library Docid # 2428735

(744) JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. PRAKASH NARAIN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 — Sections 135 & 138 — Offences related to electricity theft and tampering — Appeal against acquittal — Appellate court's scope of interference — High court should interfere with an acquittal only if there are compelling and substantial reasons, such as the judgment being clearly unreasonable, ignoring evidence, misreading material evidence, or omitting material documents.
India Law Library Docid # 2428736

(745) PURUSHOTTAM Vs. ADARSH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act — Dishonour of Cheque — Revision — Finding of guilt affirmed. Sentence modified considering petitioner underwent custody for substantial period and paid cheque amount / made substantial payment, and considering financial constraints. Compensation awarded to complainant for protracted litigation endured.
India Law Library Docid # 2428737

(746) GANPAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 105 — Appeal to Tribunal — Petitioner challenged order of Deputy Registrar declaring him ineligible due to loan default — Deputy Registrar's order was a decision made under Section 60 of the Act — Section 105(10)(b) provides a statutory remedy of appeal to the Cooperative
India Law Library Docid # 2428738

(747) SMT. SAVITA PALIWAL Vs. SHRI MANOJ[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-07-2025
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Recording of Statement — Trial Court's refusal to record witness statement despite High Court direction held unjustified when trial court itself was not functional on the scheduled dates due to absence of the Presiding Officer.
India Law Library Docid # 2428739

(748) NARAYAN DAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 20(c), 21(c), 32-B — Conviction and sentencing — Interpretation of Section 32-B regarding factors for imposing higher than minimum punishment — Court's discretion not limited to factors enumerated in Section 32-B(a)-(f) — Quantity of contraband and other relevant factors can be considered.
India Law Library Docid # 2427981

(749) M SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Essential to prove demand and acceptance by public servant — Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without demand is not an offence — Prosecution must prove foundational facts through oral or documentary evidence — Presumption under
India Law Library Docid # 2427890

(750) SUNITA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 10(2)(d) & 2(21) — Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) — Validity for driving commercial vehicle with Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 7500 kg — Driver possessing LMV license can drive transport vehicle up to 7500 kg without additional endorsement — Constitutional Bench decision in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi affirmed Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
India Law Library Docid # 2427891

(751) RAM CHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. SUKHRAM AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) — Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes — The Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification.

B. Customary Law — Proof of Custom — A custom must be proved with evidence of usage in fact and not merely by stating that it is a custom. General statements are not sufficient to establish a custom.
India Law Library Docid # 2427892

(752) GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR Vs. JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Succession Act, 1925, Sections 63, 68 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 — Proof of Will — Propounder has to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances — Suspicious circumstances include shaky signature, feeble mind, unfair disposition, propounder benefiting significantly — Absence of reasoned disinheritance of natural heir, especially wife, qualifies as a suspicious circumstance
India Law Library Docid # 2427893

(753) M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-07-2025
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) — Section 18(2) — Conciliation proceedings — Applicability of Limitation Act — The Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, as conciliation is a non-adjudicatory process based on negotiation and settlement, not a judicial or coercive process.
India Law Library Docid # 2427894

(754) VIPIN KUMAR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 17-07-2025
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Twin conditions for bail — Constitutional Courts' power to grant bail — Supreme Court decisions binding on High Courts — Constitutional Courts can grant bail under Article 21 even if statutory conditions for bail are not met, particularly when trial is delayed and period of incarceration is substantial — Earlier rejection of bail order based on strict
India Law Library Docid # 2428686

(755) BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 17-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 304B, 201, 176 — Dowry death — Cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry — Unnatural death — Seven years of marriage — Section 304B requires proof of unnatural death, death within seven years of marriage, and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for dowry soon before her death.
India Law Library Docid # 2428687

(756) PUSHP CHAND Vs. SMT. MADHU RATHI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 9 Rule 9 — Restoration of suit dismissed for default — Limitation — Restoration application filed over two years after dismissal without condonation of delay — Article 122 of Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes 30 days for such applications — Trial court erred in restoring suit without addressing limitation bar — Application for restoration can only be considered if filed within the prescribed period, or delay is condoned.
India Law Library Docid # 2428740

(757) PRIME CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-07-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Court intervention sought due to respondent's failure to form Dispute Review Expert/Board (DRE/DRB) and refusal to nominate an arbitrator — Section 11 application allowed where an arbitration clause exists and a dispute is evident, even if there are differing views on pre-arbitration steps if the party seeking arbitration has
India Law Library Docid # 2428741

(758) SHERU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 452, 326, 324 and 302 — Acid attack — Conviction upheld — Eyewitness testimonies of injured witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-16) corroborated by medical evidence (PW-12, PW-13, injury reports) proving acid injuries and lethal nature of injuries sustained by deceased (Mustaq) — Acid attack on infant causing 70% burn injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, falling under Section 300(c) IPC — Recovery of steel canister containing acid from
India Law Library Docid # 2428742

(759) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SANWAR MAL AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 304B, 302 — Appeal against acquittal — Cruelty and harassment — Dowry demand — Extra-judicial confession — Recovery of weapon — Improvements and omissions in complaint and evidence — Accused acquitted by trial court — State appeal dismissed
India Law Library Docid # 2428743

(760) MALA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-07-2025
Pension Law — Family Pension — Eligibility of ‘Substitutes’ in Railways — deceased husband of the appellant was appointed as a ‘Substitute Waterman’ and died in harness after serving for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days — Railways denied family pension on the grounds that his service was not regularized and did not meet the 10-year qualifying period for family pension — Appellant contended that as per Indian
India Law Library Docid # 2427876