(821) S.SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2] — Essential ingredients to prove offences — Demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary — Proof of demand is sine qua non — Mere recovery of money or acceptance without proof of demand is insufficient — Acquittal justified when essential ingredients not proved. India Law Library Docid # 2433112
(822) RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — Complaint Case — Registration of — Court directed registration of a complaint case after a protest petition was filed against the final report submitted by the police, which had exonerated the accused police personnel. The Court found that serious accusations were made by the informant and ordered the complaint case to be registered and the records of the police case to be tagged with it. India Law Library Docid # 2433114
(823) JINNAT ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, Section 448; POCSO Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Rape, House-trespass, Sexual intercourse with a person in shelter, Punishment — Conviction for offences under POCSO Act and IPC — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Plea of juvenility raised — Ossification test conducted to ascertain appellant's age — Conflicting reports from Medical Board — Supreme Court precedents on age determination and ossification tests — Margin of error in age ascertainment from India Law Library Docid # 2433115
(824) SURESHKUMAR BHAVANISHANKAR RAVAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MANISH DHEBARBHAI PATEL[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference not warranted merely because a second view is possible — Court should not interfere with every order passed by a lower court — Interference is justified only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice. India Law Library Docid # 2433136
(825) PRAMOD JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. CHARUMITRA DANGIWALA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 19-09-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Maintainability of petition — Petition under Article 227 lies against order of tribunal when no further appeal or revision is available — Order of State Commission in execution proceedings has no further appeal or revision — Therefore, High Court can exercise its supervisory India Law Library Docid # 2433297
(826) TRICOLOR HOTELS LIMITED Vs. DINESH JAIN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-09-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 11(5), 11(6), 15(2) — Appointment of substitute arbitrator — Condone delay — Petition filed under Section 15(2) for substitution of arbitrator — Refusal to condone delay by High Court — Petitioner's claim of knowledge of arbitrator's recusal only in second week of August 2015, making petition filed on August 1, 2018 within limitation — Supreme Court finds High Court considered entire matter and found no sufficient cause for delay — India Law Library Docid # 2433421
(827) EURO PRATIK ISPAT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-09-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Mandatory pre-institution mediation — Exception for urgent interim relief — High Court correctly held that a suit seeking urgent interim relief is not barred by Section 12A(1) of the Act, even if mediation has not been completed prior to instituting the suit. India Law Library Docid # 2433422
(828) JAYAKANDAMMAL Vs. A. SELVARAJU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-09-2025 Contempt of Court — Non-compliance of eviction order — Petitioner failed to vacate premises by the stipulated date, failed to file undertaking, and consistently avoided appearance before the Court. India Law Library Docid # 2433464
(829) M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD - II[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 19-09-2025 Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) — Definition of "Manufacture" — Test for Manufacture — Transformation Test and Marketability Test — Process of containerising Gensets by adding components like radiator, ventilation fan, etc., held to amount to "manufacture" as it resulted in a distinct product with a new identity and character India Law Library Docid # 2432813
(830) HARI PARKASH MANGLA Vs. M/S NAWAL AND SHARMA MEDICAL CARE PVT. LTD.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in Appellate Court — Application for additional evidence should be heard along with the appeal — Once the application for additional evidence is allowed, the appeal cannot be decided without the additional evidence being led and rebutted. The Appellate Court must defer the decision of the appeal until this process is complete. India Law Library Docid # 2433851
(831) SWARNJEET SINGH Vs. AKASH KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Filing of written statement — Commercial vs. Non-commercial disputes — The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 amended CPC for commercial disputes, making timelines for written statements mandatory — For non-commercial disputes, the unamended Order 8 Rule 1 CPC applies, which is directory, allowing courts discretion to condone delay. (Paras India Law Library Docid # 2433852
(832) SMT. BISMILLAH AND OTHERS Vs. BADLU AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 3 — Description of immovable property — Plaint must describe immovable property sufficiently to identify it, by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey — Failure to prove identity of suit property by description and boundaries will lead to dismissal of suit for injunction — Plaintiff failed to establish identity due to inconsistent site plans and lack of consensus on boundaries. India Law Library Docid # 2433859
(833) BALDEV @ BALDEV RAJ AND OTHERS Vs. KAMLESH RANI[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53-A — Doctrine of Part Performance — Claim for protection of possession under this doctrine requires proof of possession from the date claimed — If possession itself is not proven, the claim for protection under Section 53-A fails — Additionally, an unregistered agreement to sell, which is the basis of the claim, and not even brought on record, cannot form the foundation for such a claim. India Law Library Docid # 2433860
(834) LEKH SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. KULDIP SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 — Discretion of court — Grant of specific performance — Courts below considered all facts and circumstances and rightly granted relief — Exercise of discretion was judicious and informed — Grant of relief is not inequitable — Appeal dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2433861
(835) BALWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AMRITSAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Second Appeal — Scope — Under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 CPC — In Punjab and Haryana High Court, second appeals are treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which does not require framing of a substantial question of law — Relies on Supreme Court judgments in Pankajakshi, Kirodi, and Satender. India Law Library Docid # 2433862
(836) SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA Vs. HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Service Law — Seniority — Ad hoc vs. Regular Service — Ad hoc service does not create a right to seniority — Previous service is only relevant for seniority after re-appointment if the employee is again appointed on a regular basis. India Law Library Docid # 2433863
(837) CHHAGU LAL GADARI @ CHHAGUDA AND OTHERS Vs. MAHAVEER SINGH AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of proceedings — Discretionary power — Court has discretionary power to transfer cases, but it must be exercised judicially and only when the interest of justice demands it. A party's mere desire to change the venue is not sufficient reason. India Law Library Docid # 2433966
(838) RAMJI LAL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-09-2025 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 — Rules 16, 17, 18, 30 — Discipline and Appeal Rules — Penalty Order — Appeal — Preliminary Inquiry vs. Regular Inquiry — Preliminary inquiry is only a fact-finding exercise to determine if a prima facie case exists for initiating proceedings; it cannot be the sole basis for imposing punishment. A regular departmental inquiry, conducted with India Law Library Docid # 2433959
(839) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAMESH CHAND[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2] — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Essential ingredients — Proof of demand is crucial — Mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient without proof of demand — Presumption under Section 20 is only attracted if demand is proven — Factual matrix indicated strained relations between complainant and accused, leading to possibility of false India Law Library Docid # 2434025
(840) SANTOSH KUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 19-09-2025 Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 — Sections 17 and 18 — Appeal and Revision — Power of appellate authority — While appeal is only maintainable against an order of rejection of a caste certificate application, the appellate authority also possesses revisional power under Section 18 of the Act, which can be exercised without any limitation period, even for orders granting certificates. This ensures that a India Law Library Docid # 2434130