(161) GIRIGIRI KARANCHANDAR, KARAN Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Extra-Judicial Confession — Evidentiary Value and Corroboration — An extra-judicial confession is traditionally considered a weak piece of evidence and requires careful scrutiny — It must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence — While corroboration is not an absolute rule, an extra-judicial confession gains significant credibility and evidentiary value if supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and other prosecution evidence — Factors such as the person to whom India Law Library Docid # 2424788
(162) NARAYANA RAO KARNATI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Alternative Efficacious Remedy — Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (Act, 1999) — Sections 6 & 7(3) — Writ Petition Maintainability — Where a special statute, such as the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, provides for the constitution of a Special Court (under Section 6) and specifically allows any person claiming an interest in attached property to make an objection before such Sp India Law Library Docid # 2424789
(163) K. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of Proceedings — Lack of Prima Facie Case — Specific Allegations — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an accused (A.15) when the complaint and the statements of all witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., even if taken at face value, do not attribute any specific overt act or direct role to the said accused in the India Law Library Docid # 2424790
(164) GUDIPATI VENKANNA Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 397 — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Insufficiency for Conviction — In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused — The circumstance of ‘last seen’ alone, particularly with a significant time gap (approx. 25 hours) between the alleged sighting and the discovery of the deceased’s body, is insufficient to form the basis for a conviction India Law Library Docid # 2424831
(165) ANNALURU YOGA MYTHRI Vs. PALAGRI VINAYA DEVI[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Enquiry — The determination of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint itself, taken as true in their entirety — The Court cannot consider the defendant’s defence, written statement, or any external documents or evidence at this stage. India Law Library Docid # 2424832
(166) SINGIREDDY SRINIVAS REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Quashing of Charge Sheet — Prima Facie Case — For determining whether a charge sheet under Section 306 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, the court must examine if the allegations in the complaint, witness statements, and collected materials, even if taken at face value, make out a prima facie case reflecting the essential ingredients of the offence. India Law Library Docid # 2424833
(167) V. SURENDRA BABU, HYDERABAD Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS, HYD AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Principles of Natural Justice — Vagueness of Charges — Charges framed against a delinquent employee must be definite, distinct, and based on specific allegations, accompanied by a statement of allegations, list of documents, and list of witnesses as per applicable regulations — Failure to provide such specific particulars renders the charges vague and vitiates the enquiry for want of adequate opportunity to defend. India Law Library Docid # 2424842
(168) P.V. MUDHUN REDDY @ PEDDIREDDI VENKATA MIDHUN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 (Anticipatory Bail) [Corresponding to Cr.P.C. Section 438] — Requirement of Reasonable Apprehension— The exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail requires the applicant to demonstrate a “reason to believe” — founded on concrete facts and reasonable grounds relating to a specific offence — that they are likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence — Mere vague or general allegations, fear based on media reports, or apprehension India Law Library Docid # 2424892
(169) LAZARUS LUNJALA Vs. THE ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (AELC) AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Societies — Election Disputes — Management — Disposal by Consent — Appointment of Controller — In writ appeals concerning long-standing and complex disputes between multiple factions regarding the rightful management and upcoming elections of a registered society (AELC), where pending litigation and competing claims threatened further chaos, the High Court, with the agreement of counsel for all parties, disposed of the appeals by appointing a retired J India Law Library Docid # 2424906
(170) M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHAMMAD ARIF AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 10 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Section 10 mandates that a claim for compensation should ordinarily be filed within two years of the accident — However, the proviso thereto empowers the Commissioner to entertain and decide a claim filed beyond this period if satisfied that the failure to file the claim in time was due to “sufficient cause” — Where the claimant underwent prolonged medical treatment and obtained a permanent di India Law Library Docid # 2424948
(171) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. PARNEET KAUR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can only be ordered if the plaint, read as a whole, falls under any of the clauses (a) to (f) — The court must examine the averments in the plaint itself, assuming them to be true, without looking at the defence. Objections like collusion or contradiction, not falling within the specified clauses, are not grounds for rejection under this rule. India Law Library Docid # 2424949
(172) PYARE LAL GUPTA Vs. SOM BALA ALIAS SUMAN KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 —Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 67] — Proof of Will — Onus Probandi — The onus of proving the due execution of a Will lies squarely and solely on the propounder of the Will This requires demonstrating compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, primarily through the examination of at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (Section 67 BSA) — This onus does not India Law Library Docid # 2424950
(173) GURMEET SINGH Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Promissory Estoppel / Legitimate Expectation — Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Promise — For a claim based on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation to succeed, the representation or promise made by the authority must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous — A person cannot claim a right based on altering their position pursuant to a promise or representation that was conditional or applicable only to a specific category of persons to which the claimant does not belong. India Law Library Docid # 2424951
(174) NARBADA DEVI Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 25-B(8) — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — The scope of interference by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is highly restrictive and supervisory in nature It is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction — The High Court may interfere only to satisfy itself that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to law,” and cannot substitute its own findings or re-appreciate evidence, particularly on questions of fact like bona India Law Library Docid # 2424952
(175) V.AKILESWARA REDDY Vs. GOLLA KARTHIK YADAV AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 14(3) — Production of Plaintiff's Documents — Leave of Court — Requirement of Reasons for Delay — The grant of leave under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for receiving documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which were not produced at the time of presenting the plaint, is discretionary — While technicalities should not always prevent evidence from coming on record, leave is not for mere asking — The plaintiff seeking to produce documents belatedly, especia India Law Library Docid # 2424964
(176) GODREJ PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs. FRONTIER HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against denial of Interim Relief (S.17) — Scope of Interference — The scope of an appeal under Section 37 against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) refusing to grant interim measures under Section 17 is highly circumscribed and analogous to the restrictive scope under Section 34 — The appellate court cannot conduct an independent assessment of merits or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interf India Law Library Docid # 2425000
(177) PREETY Vs. SUMIT KUMAR NARWAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6(a) Proviso — Interim Custody of Child Below Five Years — Welfare Principle Paramount — While Section 6(a) proviso states that custody of a minor child who has not completed five years shall ordinarily be with the mother, this is not an absolute rule — The paramount consideration in all custody matters, including interim custody, remains the welfare of the child — Courts can deviate from the ordinary rule if specific circumstances indicate tha India Law Library Docid # 2425038
(178) KANTA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 & Order 22 Rule 4 — Suit filed against Dead Person — Impleadment of Legal Representatives — Applicability of Provisions — A suit filed against a person who was already deceased at the time of institution is generally considered a nullity ab initio — An application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is technically not maintainable in such a case, as this provision applies only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit — The appropriate provision f India Law Library Docid # 2425039
(179) MATA RANI Vs. SECRETARY, PUNJAB TRANSPORT AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Proof of Negligence — Evidentiary Value of Criminal Court Findings — While the findings of a Criminal Court regarding rash and negligent driving in a connected criminal case are not strictly binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), they cannot be ignored when deciding the issue of negligence in a claim petition — Given the different standards of proof (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal trials versus ‘preponderance of prob India Law Library Docid # 2425040
(180) DALJIT SINGH HANJRA Vs. SIMRANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Quantum — Assessment Factors — In determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court must consider various factors including the status of the parties, respective needs of the claimant(s), income and assets (movable/immovable properties, business interests, rental income etc.) of the respondent-husband, liabilities, and the claimant’s independent income, if any — A comprehensive assessment based on evi India Law Library Docid # 2425041