ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(21) N. SURESH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(5) — Right to make representation — Detenu’s right to make a representation against an order of detention must be considered expeditiously — Failure to do so invalidates the detention order — Detenu also has a right to receive timely communication regarding the status of their representation — Delay in communicating the rejection of a representation violates the constitutional right.
India Law Library Docid # 2428050

(22) LAGNI MUNDAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 — Section 71A — Restoration of land — Limitation — While Section 71A does not prescribe a specific period of limitation, the term “at any time” does not imply that an application can be filed at the whim of a raiyat; the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that applications must be filed within a reasonable
India Law Library Docid # 2428051

(23) MOHAMAD RAFIQ SHEIKH AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT, SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SRINAGAR AND OTHERS[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 25-07-2025
Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 — Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 19 — Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998, Regulation 11 — Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operations (Revised) Regulations, 2001, Regulation 9 — Compounding of Offences — Violation of setbacks — Held, violations concerning permissible front, rear, or side setbacks are not considered
India Law Library Docid # 2428052

(24) MUFASIL AHMAD THOKER Vs. UT OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 25-07-2025
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8 — Preventive Detention — Quashing of Detention Order — Grounds of detention must be proximate to the need for detention — Petitioner detained based on old incidents (2017-2018) and FIR from 2019 — Allegations of continued prejudicial activity after release on bail are not supported by the grounds of detention — Detention order quashed.
India Law Library Docid # 2428053

(25) ARUN FATEHPURIA AND OTHERS Vs. TARACHAND THOLIA HUF[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 9 — Eviction — Sub-letting and bona fide necessity — Application for eviction filed by landlord against tenants on grounds of tenant sub-letting premises and landlord’s bona fide personal need — Issue of sub-letting decided against landlord, issue of personal bona fide need decided in his favour by both Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal — Petitioners argued tenancy created in favor
India Law Library Docid # 2428040

(26) HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947— Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Indian Penal Code— Section 161 — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Appeal against conviction — Conviction upheld as demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence, including corroboration from other
India Law Library Docid # 2428041

(27) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference by appellate court is limited — Reversal of acquittal only if Trial Court’s judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact — Mere possibility of a contrary view does not justify reversal if Trial Court’s view is legally plausible.
India Law Library Docid # 2428042

(28) KHURSHID AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 25-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 156(3) — Powers of Magistrate to direct registration of FIR — Prior compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) mandatory — Application under Section 156(3) must clearly state prior attempts to lodge FIR with police station and Superintendent of Police, supported by documentary evidence and
India Law Library Docid # 2428069

(29) SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 — Section 17 — Revisionary power of Financial Commissioner — Scope and limitations — Revisional authority must act to subserve justice by eliminating illegality or perversity and not as a court of original jurisdiction — Revisional power to be exercised based on legality, propriety and satisfaction about the order of subordinate authority.
India Law Library Docid # 2428070

(30) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ABHIJEET SINGH THAKUR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Challenge on quantum of compensation — Whether compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive — Assessment of notional income and future prospects for a student victim — Role of minimum wages vs. potential earnings of an engineering graduate — Application of multiplier for future attendant and medical expenses —
India Law Library Docid # 2428071

(31) RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. USUF ALI JIVAJI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963— Section 10, 16(c) — Specific Performance — Readiness and Willingness — Plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract by not entering witness box and adducing oral evidence, mere submission of a cheque is insufficient — Plaintiff did not challenge cancellation of offer,
India Law Library Docid # 2428072

(32) MUKESHKUMAR MULJIBHAI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Appeal against conviction — Appellant convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque and ordered to pay compensation — Appellant paid the entire compensation amount after conviction but before the appeal hearing — Respondent-Bank did not appear despite notice —
India Law Library Docid # 2428073

(33) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. FAKIRBHAI MOTIBHAI SIPAI[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 135(1)(A) — Offence of theft of electricity — Elements of proof — Failure to produce seized muddamal (material evidence) wire before the court, lack of independent witness statements, absence of accused’s signature on checking documents, improper sealing and handling of muddamal, and failure to verify ownership of the premises, all contribute to a failure to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
India Law Library Docid # 2428074

(34) SAMEER SUBHASH PATIL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Municipal Law — Illegal Occupancy — Violation of Building Regulations — Court expressed dismay at the complete lack of action by municipal authorities regarding the illegal occupation of 12 ground-floor commercial premises and two first-floor premises in a building redevelopment project, which lacked an Occupation Certificate (OC). The court highlighted the contrast between the illegal occupancy of commercial tenants for 12
India Law Library Docid # 2428075

(35) JAI SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 25-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B and 498-A — Dowry Death and Cruelty by Husband or Relatives — Ingredients for Dowry Death — Death caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, with evidence of cruelty or harassment by husband/relatives soon before death in connection with dowry demand — Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act can
India Law Library Docid # 2428076

(36) JAGBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 9-A(2) and Rule 26 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 — Objection regarding recording of name as Sirdar — Consolidation Officer’s finding that petitioners failed to prove title and possession over the plot in question, properly exercised jurisdiction under Rule 26.
India Law Library Docid # 2428077

(37) A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. PUPPALA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168, 169 and Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 476(7) — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Procedure for inquiry — While the Tribunal is mandated to proceed with a summary inquiry, it can consider any oral or documentary evidence beyond the specific documents mentioned in Rule 476(7) and the First Information Report alone cannot be the conclusive basis for determining the
India Law Library Docid # 2428078

(38) SMT. NALLURI PADMA Vs. VEERISETTY KRISHNA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 13 – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Failure to file written statement within 90 days – Supreme Court judgment in Salem Advocate Bar Association case allows extension of time for filing written statement as a directory provision in the interest of justice – Dismissal of application solely on technical
India Law Library Docid # 2428079

(39) EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Pre-Institution Mediation — Revocation of Dispensation — Plaintiff’s claim of learning about the impugned product in February 2025, with a continuing cause of action — Defendant sought revocation of dispensation order by alleging plaintiff had prior knowledge due to public disclosures (regulatory authorities, annual reports) and extensive use since 2023 — Court held that
India Law Library Docid # 2428080

(40) OTMAR FORSTER Vs. ANIL SARAOGI[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 13A, Rule 3 — Summary Judgment — Grounds for — Court may grant summary judgment if there’s no real prospect of success for the opposing party and no compelling reason to hear oral evidence — The plaintiff sought summary judgment for commission based on an agreement. The defendant contended a mutual modification of the commission rate and termination of the agreement, providing
India Law Library Docid # 2428081