(821) PRABHJOT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 — Reservation for Women — Horizontal Reservation — Implementation via advertisement — Where an advertisement was issued subsequent to the notification of the 2020 Rules providing 33% horizontal reservation for women, and specified certain posts (like DSP ‘SC Sports’) as reserved for women (‘SC Sports (Women)’), this reservation specification within the advertisement, implementing the mandate of the 2020 Rules, is valid for that r India Law Library Docid # 2424442
(822) R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJMANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope and Power of High Court — A second appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which it must formulate precisely (S. 100(1), (3), (4)) — The High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to deciding the substantial question(s) of law so formulated (or any other substantial question after recording reasons under the proviso to S. 100(5)) — The High Court should adjudicate the formula India Law Library Docid # 2424443
(823) NEHA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods — The specific prohibition contained in S. 13(7)(i) explicitly disallows ITC facility in respect of purchases India Law Library Docid # 2424444
(824) SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. ADITYA SARDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Nature and Scope — Power to grant anticipatory bail under S. 438 is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, not as a matter of routine — Its object is to protect individuals from harassment or humiliation, but this must be balanced against the larger societal interest in maintaining law and order and ensuring India Law Library Docid # 2424445
(825) CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, C.G.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 271(1)(c) — Penalty for Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars — Bona Fide Error vs. Mens Rea — Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof — A mere bona fide, inadvertent error in computation or data feeding in the return of income does not automatically attract penalty, especially when the correct figures are available in accompanying documents like the Tax Audit Report filed under Section 44AB India Law Library Docid # 2424712
(826) KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528) — Inherent Powers — Interference with Investigation & Stay of Arrest — The High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Sec 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice should be exercised cautiously and sparingly regarding ongoing criminal investigations — Courts should generally refrain from stalling investigations, especially at the initial stage, if the FIR or India Law Library Docid # 2424887
(827) S. SWAPNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Sentence — Imprisonment for Life — Meaning and Duration— A sentence of imprisonment for life, imposed either directly or upon commutation from a death sentence, means incarceration for the remainder of the convicted person’s natural life — This position is conclusively settled by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. (Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra, Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs. State of Bihar, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, Sangeet & Anr vs. State of Haryana fo India Law Library Docid # 2424893
(828) MANEPALLI MOHAN RAO Vs. M/S SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of Suit/Proceeding — Apprehension of Bias — Standard Required — The law is well settled that for a case to be transferred under Section 24 CPC on the ground of apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial, such apprehension must be reasonable and not merely imaginary or based on conjectures and surmises Mere allegations or subjective feelings are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate circumstances from which a India Law Library Docid # 2424910
(829) MANEPALLI MOHAN RAO Vs. KOTIPALLI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI PARVATHI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of Suit/Proceeding — Apprehension of Bias — Standard Required — Effect of Judge’s Transfer — For seeking transfer of a case under Section 24 CPC based on an apprehension of not getting a fair trial or justice due to alleged bias of the presiding Judicial Officer, the apprehension must be reasonable and based on cogent circumstances, not merely subjective or conjectural — Mere allegations are insufficient — Furthermore, if the specific Judi India Law Library Docid # 2424911
(830) ISHAN GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Education — Competitive Examinations — JEE (Main) 2025 — Change of Reservation Category (General to PwD/PwBD) — Request Post Session I Result Declaration but Pre Session II Result Declaration — Judicial Intervention — Petitioner applied for JEE (Main) 2025 under General Category, appeared in Session I, result declared — Subsequently obtained Disability Certificate (Specific Learning Disability) and requested change to PwD/PwBD category before appearing in Session II — Petitioner volunteered unde India Law Library Docid # 2424937
(831) MADHURI PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. SOHAN LAL PANDEY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Assessment of Husband’s Income — Burden of Proof — In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the onus lies upon the petitioner (wife/child) seeking maintenance or enhancement thereof, to substantiate claims regarding the respondent-husband’s income through cogent evidence — Mere assertions regarding the husband’s employment, salary (Rs. 40,000/- per month from a job in Surat), side businesses, or ownership of substantial agric India Law Library Docid # 2424989
(832) STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 364 — Kidnapping or Abducting in order to Murder — Proof of Intent — Contradictions in Testimony — Acquittal under Section 364 IPC upheld where the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent to murder or put the complainant in danger of being murdered — Complainant’s testimony revealed the demand was to compel marriage or payment, not primarily murder — Material improvement and contradiction between the initial Complaint (stating voluntary entry into th India Law Library Docid # 2424990
(833) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT BUILDING MATERIALS Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Post-Retirement Recovery — Natural Justice — Show Cause Notice — Recovery of alleged excess payments (arising from implementation of 7th CPC) sought from employees after their superannuation, based on undertakings given before superannuation to refund any excess, is impermissible without adhering to principles of natural justice — Issuance of a recovery notice merely demanding refund without providing reasons or basis for the alleged excess, and subsequ India Law Library Docid # 2424991
(834) UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. DR KIRAN GUPTA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Promotion — University Teachers — Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-2010 — Clause 6.3.12 — Effective Date of Promotion — Interpretation of Clause 6.3.12(a) vis-à-vis Clause 6.3.12(c) — Clause 6.3.12(a) of CAS-2010, providing for promotion from the date of minimum eligibility upon successful assessment, applies only when the candidate succeeds in the first assessment after applying upon becoming eligible — Clause 6.3.12(c) applies when a candidate does not succeed in the first assessm India Law Library Docid # 2424992
(835) GAURAV GAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] — Quashing of FIR — Offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — Settlement in Matrimonial Dispute — Exercise of inherent power to quash FIR, along with charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the petitioners (husband and his family members) and the respondent No.2 (wife) — Settlement achieved through mediation, docume India Law Library Docid # 2424993
(836) KIRAN Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 & Order 10 — Judgment on Admissions — Statement Recorded under Order X — A preliminary decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be validly passed based on clear and unequivocal admissions made by the defendant in a statement recorded by the trial court under Order 10 CPC, even if such admissions contradict averments made in the written statement — The scope of “otherwise, whether orally or in writing” under Order 12 Rule 6 encompasse India Law Library Docid # 2424994
(837) MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Vs. COSMO PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Liberal and Justice-Oriented Approach — The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requires a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented interpretation rather than a rigid or purely technical one — The primary objective is to advance substantial justice — While the length of delay is a factor, the explanation offered is decisive — Courts should lean towards condoning delay, especially w India Law Library Docid # 2425074
(838) PURSHOTAM KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. HANUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Onus and Standard — The onus lies squarely on the propounder to prove the due execution and attestation of a Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, by examining at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (if available) — Given the solemnity of a Will, which speaks from death, proof must satisfy the judicial conscience — The standard is not mathematical certai India Law Library Docid # 2425075
(839) DHANI RAM Vs. NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 — Section 15 — Partial Pre-emption — Indivisible Sale Transaction — Co-sharer in one Khewat — The right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, requiring the pre-emptor to take over the entire bargain covered by the sale deed sought to be pre-empted — Where a sale deed conveys land falling in multiple khewats under a single, indivisible transaction, a plaintiff who is a co-sharer in only one of those khewats cannot maintain a suit for pre-empting only the portion India Law Library Docid # 2425076
(840) SUNIL KUMAR @ SHINA Vs. HANUMAN SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment — Just Compensation — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — Amputation Injuries — The principle of ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act requires an award that is fair and equitable, neither meagre nor excessive (‘no less and no more’) — In cases of permanent disability due to amputation, particularly multiple amputations, the assessment of ‘functional disability’ concerning loss of earning capacity is paramount and must b India Law Library Docid # 2425077