ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(741) ARDDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. HERAEUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIAN PVT. LTD.[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 202, 204 & 482 — Issuance of Process — Application of Mind — Inquiry under Section 202 — Quashing of Proceedings — Where a Magistrate, before issuing process under Section 204 CrPC (especially against accused residing outside jurisdiction), directs an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and subsequently issues process after considering the inquiry report, it indicates application of judicial mind — Such an order issuing process does not require detailed
India Law Library Docid # 2425164

(742) ABHIMANYU PRASAD OJHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 133 — Public Nuisance — Examination of the validity of a conditional order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing removal of a wall allegedly constructed on public land (Gata No. 225), and a subsequent order directing compliance passed during the pendency of a criminal revision against the initial order.
India Law Library Docid # 2425311

(743) SHAILENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Compassionate Appointment — Teachers — Constitutional Validity — Examination of the constitutional validity of Government Orders (GOs) dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013, specifically in so far as they permit appointments to the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds, tested against the principles of Articles 14, 16, and the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
India Law Library Docid # 2425312

(744) SMT. KEHKASHAN Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
UP Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 1994 — Marking Ballot Paper (Rule 86(2)(b)) — The Rule mandates making a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose, on or near the chosen symbol, to indicate the vote
India Law Library Docid # 2425326

(745) MAHANT BHEEM BHARTI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT, HANUMANGARH JUNCTION, COMMISSIONER, DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT, UDAIPUR AND JAGDAMBA BHARTI CHELA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 14(3) & (4), Section 151 — Production of Documents at Later Stage: Leave to produce documents after filing the plaint can be granted under O.VII R.14(4) read with S.151 CPC, considering factors like stage of proceedings, reasons for delay, relevance, prejudice, and prima facie genuineness — The court’s focus at this stage is on the sufficiency of reasons for non-production earlier, not final admissibility or reliability.
India Law Library Docid # 2425412

(746) SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Service Law — Transfer — Authority — BDO/VDO: Block Development Officers (BDOs)/Village Development Officers (VDOs) are generally not independently authorized to transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti; such power typically rests with higher authorities or is exercised under specific instructions/delegation — A transfer order issued solely by a BDO without competent authority is liable to be quashed.
India Law Library Docid # 2425413

(747) SWAN MARBLES AND GRANITE (A UNIT OF SWAN INDUSTRIES LTD.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11 / Central Excise Rules, 1944 — Rule 230(2) — Transfer of Liability: During the specific period from 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004, there was no statutory provision (like Rule 230(2) of the 1944 Rules or the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, as they stood then or were absent) that mandated the transfer of outstanding excise dues of a predecessor unit to a subsequent purchaser of its assets/property, particularly in an auction sale conducted by a third party (RIICO
India Law Library Docid # 2425414

(748) AMAN BAID AND ANOTHER Vs. MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Suit relating to Converted Residential Land — An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction because the land mentioned in the plaint was agricultural land is liable to be dismissed, where it is shown that the land had already been converted into residential land by the
India Law Library Docid # 2425469

(749) LALIT NARAYAN DHAKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Caste Certificate Adjudication — Supremacy of High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee over State-Notified Appeal Mechanism — The notification dated 10-4-2013 issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the M.P. Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010, and the guidelines dated 13-1-2014 issued by the GAD (Clauses 14, 14.1, 14.2), which provide for a first appeal to the Collector and a second appeal to the
India Law Library Docid # 2425522

(750) RAMU @ MANVENDRA SINGH GURJAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 233 — Production of Preserved Evidence — Rejection Based on False Police Report Set Aside — An order of the Trial Court rejecting an accused’s application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for production of call details and mobile locations (which were previously directed by the court to be preserved) on the ground that the police reported their inability to produce them due to lapse of time, is liable to be set aside when it is established that the said records w
India Law Library Docid # 2425523

(751) SITARA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — Clauses 15, 16 & 18 — Fair Price Shops — Suspension order by Sub-Divisional Officer based on alleged shortcomings — Challenge through writ petition without exhausting available statutory remedies under the Control Order, 2016 — Absence of pleading or demonstration of exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires of statute/delegated legislation) just
India Law Library Docid # 2425675

(752) RANJIT KOUR AND ANOTHER Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope — When considering quashing based on allegations being omnibus or lacking details, court must not only examine FIR but also analyze material collected during investigation (Case Diary) — Details unearthed during investigation can cure initial lack of specificity in FIR — Allegations in FIR, supported by
India Law Library Docid # 2425813

(753) HEM RAJ PHONSA Vs. U.T. OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (J&K Cr.P.C.) — Section 251-A(2) — Procedure in cases instituted on Police Report — Discharge vs. Framing of Charge — Court’s duty upon consideration of charge sheet documents and hearing: discharge if charge groundless, frame charge if ground for presuming commission of offence exists.
India Law Library Docid # 2425814

(754) DINESH KUMAR Vs. U.T. OF LEH AND LADAKH[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 16-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 (Rape) — Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) — Conviction challenged — Appeal against conviction under Sections 376 and 323 RPC — Grounds of challenge include erroneous appreciation of evidence, lack of identification parade, appellant not previously known to victim, absence of medical evidence of sexual intercourse under Section 376, and alleged conviction for graver offence than charged (attempt to
India Law Library Docid # 2425815

(755) SWAMI VIVEKANAND ADARSH VIDYA MANDIR Vs. SANSAR CHAND AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 16-04-2025
Hindu Law — Ancestral Property — Property inherited from collateral not ancestral. Property inherited by a Hindu from a collateral source such as a brother or his widow does not assume the character of ancestral property in the hands of the successor. (Paras 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 27, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43
India Law Library Docid # 2425816

(756) PINKI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC — High Court granted b
India Law Library Docid # 2424657

(757) MRS. VARSHATAI W/O. SH. SANJAY BAGADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025
Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 — Section 3 — Official Language — Use of Additional Language — The prescription of Marathi as the official language for Local Authorities under Section 3 of the 2022 Act does not operate as a prohibition against the use of any other language, such as Urdu (a language included in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution), in addition to Marathi on signboards of a Municipal Council, particularly for the purpose of effective communication wi
India Law Library Docid # 2424694

(758) NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA AND ANOTHER Vs. HITESH P. SANGHVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Bar of Limitation — For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is obligated to consider the averments made in the plaint alone — Where, from a plain reading of the plaint averments, the suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected — No requirement exists to allow parties to lead evidence on limitation when the bar is apparent ex-facie from
India Law Library Docid # 2424695

(759) CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Mixed Question of Law and Fact — Copyright Act, 1957 & Designs Act, 2000 — The determination of whether an ‘artistic work’ (under Copyright Act, S. 2(c)) falls within the definition of a ‘design’ (under Designs Act, S. 2(d)) and whether copyright protection ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act due to industrial application involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination beyond th
India Law Library Docid # 2424696

(760) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such
India Law Library Docid # 2424770