(101) BABU M Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(1) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 47(1) — Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest — Every person arrested must be informed of the full particulars or grounds for arrest “as soon as may be” — This is a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement, violation of which infringes fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) India Law Library Docid # 2424643
(102) V.T. JINU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 197 — Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants — Sanction is required only if the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” — The act/omission charged must have a reasonable connection with the discharge of duties. India Law Library Docid # 2424644
(103) BHASKAR ROHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 497 — Adultery — Offence Unconstitutional — Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 11 S.C.R. 765, as it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, a conviction recorded under Section 497 IPC after the said judgment (or even for offences committed prior, as the section itself is struck down) is unsustainable in law and liable to be set as India Law Library Docid # 2424717
(104) VASHIST SAINATH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Factors for Consideration — Gravity of Offence and Stage of Investigation — In exercising discretion under Section 482 BNSS (Anticipatory Bail), the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, the stage of the investigation, and the potential impact of granting bail on the ongoing investigation — Anticipatory bail may be declined where serious allegations involving substantial financial mi India Law Library Docid # 2424841
(105) KALLURU NARAYANA REDDY Vs. KALLURU CHENCHUGANDLA JAYA CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 26 Rule 9 — Appointment of Advocate Commissioner — Purpose — Elucidating Matter in Dispute vs. Collecting Evidence — Discretion of Court — The power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is discretionary and intended for elucidating matters in dispute where a prima facie case exists and local investigation is deemed proper — Such appointment cannot be used as a means for a party to collect evidence to prove India Law Library Docid # 2424907
(106) S.B. PODDAR Vs. M/S REHABILITATIONS PLANTATION LTD AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Executing Court — Power to Go Behind Decree — Nullity — Lack of Jurisdiction — The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and entertain objections regarding its validity on grounds that could and should have been raised during the trial stage, especially when the decree has attained finality — An objection that the decree is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction (alleging no cause of action pleaded against the judgment debtor) or that it was o India Law Library Docid # 2424940
(107) ANKUR JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482] — Quashing of FIR — Settlement in Cases Arising from Family/Trust Disputes — Sections 420/468/471 IPC — Where criminal proceedings under Sections 420/468/471 IPC arise out of disputes inter se between parties related through family and involved in the administration of a common trust, and the parties subsequently arrive at a comprehensive, voluntary, an India Law Library Docid # 2424941
(108) MRS. KIRAN SURAN Vs. SH. SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 31(5) & 34(3) — Limitation for Setting Aside Award — Commencement — Receipt of Signed Award — The limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award commences only from the date on which the party making the application receives a copy of the award signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal, as mandated by Section 31(5). India Law Library Docid # 2424942
(109) M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED Vs. OZONE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Enquiry — Non-Signatory Party — The scope of enquiry by the Court under Section 11 is confined primarily to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties sought to be referred — While considering reference of a non-signatory based on doctrines like ‘Group of Companies’, the Court undertakes only a minimal, prima facie review without detailed analysis — A comprehe India Law Library Docid # 2424943
(110) RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS RAKESH SINGLA Vs. SATISH KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6A and Order 6 Rule 17 — Counterclaim — Amendment of Written Statement — Time Limit for Filing Counterclaim — Stage after Closure of Evidence — An application seeking amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate a counterclaim, when filed after the framing of issues and after the conclusion of evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, when the case is posted for rebuttal evidence or arguments, is impermissible — Rel India Law Library Docid # 2425062
(111) KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. BHEERO @ PRAKASH KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Due Execution and Attestation — To prove the due execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act, the propounder must satisfy the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examining at least one attesting witness, if available — The attesting witness must testify not only to the testator’s signature/mark but also that the testator signed/marked in their presence and that they, along with the India Law Library Docid # 2425063
(112) TARA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 108 — Burden of Proof — Person not heard of for seven years — Where the prosecution case rests on the premise that a person (victim of forgery) has not been heard of for over seven years, establishing this fact shifts the burden under Section 108 of the Evidence Act onto the accused who assert that the person was alive during the relevant period — The failure of the accused to discharge this burden by leading cogent evidence, especially when they had the opportunity, India Law Library Docid # 2425064
(113) LEKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. AMI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope and Limitations — Error Apparent on Face of Record — The jurisdiction to review a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed and limited — It cannot be invoked to rehear the matter on merits or to correct an erroneous decision, which is the domain of an appeal — Review is permissible only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an error that is self-evident and does not require elaborate a India Law Library Docid # 2425065
(114) SUPARNA BHALLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 [Cr.P.C., 1973, Section 482] — Initial Stage — FIR Not Encyclopedia — The First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case; its purpose is limited to setting the criminal law in motion — The absence of specific, detailed allegations against an accused in the FIR, or the fact that an accused is not named therein, is not a ground for quashing the FIR at the India Law Library Docid # 2425066
(115) DINESH DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 467, 468, 471 — Forgery of Valuable Security, Forgery for Cheating, Using Forged Document — Proof — Expert Evidence — Conviction under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC is sustainable where the prosecution proves through conclusive expert evidence (handwriting analysis) that the accused (a bank employee) was involved in forging documents related to the encashment of a high-value cheque via a fictitious bank account, and used such forged documents as genuine for the purpo India Law Library Docid # 2425203
(116) TATA SKY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. S G ENTERPREISES - TATA SKY SALES AND SERVICES AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Practice and Procedure — Clarification of Orders — Inadvertent Errors — The Court has the power to correct inadvertent errors in its previous orders upon an application being filed demonstrating the error — In this instance, paragraphs in a previous order concerning the status and implementation timeline of the ‘Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility’ for RTGS/NEFT by RBI were corrected based on an application and clarification provided. India Law Library Docid # 2424944
(117) GURWINDER SINGH ALIAS GORI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 [as applicable via Revision against JJB/Sessions Court orders] — Bail — General Principles — Presumption of Innocence — In considering bail applications, particularly in revisions against denial of bail, courts reiterate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence — The grant of bail is generally the rule, and putting a person in jail or prison before conviction is an exception, requiring justifica India Law Library Docid # 2425048
(118) SIMRANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 05-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in Injury Claims — Just Compensation Principle — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — The assessment of compensation in injury cases must adhere to the principle of ‘just compensation’, aiming to provide adequate recompense without being a bonanza or unduly meagre — In cases of permanent disability, the focus must be on the impact of the disability on the claimant’s earning capacity (functional disability), which may differ significantly from th India Law Library Docid # 2425049
(119) MD. MAHMUD ALAM @ MAHMUD @ NEPALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43D(5) — Bail — Restriction on Grant — Prima Facie Case — Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes a specific embargo on the grant of bail if the Court, upon perusal of the case diary and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., forms an opinion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusation against the person for committing an offence under Chapter IV or VI of the UAPA is prima facie true — This standard shifts the conventional bail j India Law Library Docid # 2424326
(120) SRI. VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 306, 307 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 5(2) — Tender of Pardon — Procedure by Special Judge/Sessions Court — Interpretation of “on the same condition” in S. 307 — Requirement to record acceptance of pardon (S. 306(3)(b)) — Deemed Acceptance — The condition stipulated in Section 307 Cr.P.C. (“on the same condition”) for granting pardon by the Court to which the case is committed (or a Special Court exercising similar power) refers specific India Law Library Docid # 2424339