ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(201) RAMA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Sections 13 & 15 [Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c), 124A] — Untoward Incident — Bona Fide Passenger — The initial burden lies upon the claimant seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, to establish that the deceased/injured was a bona fide passenger travelling on the train in question at the time of the alleged untoward incident.
India Law Library Docid # 2424961

(202) MUKESH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 75 & 76 — Powers and Functions of Chief Commissioner (CCPD) — Binding Nature of Recommendations — Unlike the repealed Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Section 76 of the 2016 Act mandates that the concerned authority shall take necessary action upon a recommendation made by the CCPD under Section 75(1)(b) regarding deprivation of rights or safeguards for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) — However, this mandate is subject to the proviso
India Law Library Docid # 2424962

(203) SHAIK MADAR MIAH Vs. THE STATE OF AP.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32(1) — Dying Declaration — Multiple Declarations — Reliability and Consistency — Where the prosecution case hinges solely on multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, but there exist material contradictions and inconsistencies between these declarations (regarding the immediate motive, the sequence of events, and who brought the deceased to the hospital), and there is a complete absence of any other independent or corroborative evidence pointing towards the
India Law Library Docid # 2424963

(204) SUMAN SHARMA Vs. MAHENDER SHARMA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 340 — Inquiry into Perjury — Expediency in Interest of Justice — For a court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (leading to a complaint for perjury under S. 195), it must form a considered opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to conduct an inquiry — Prosecution for perjury is not mandatory for every incorrect or false statement made in court proceedings.
India Law Library Docid # 2425001

(205) RAJ SINGH Vs. M/S M.R. TRADING CO.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 14 Rule 2 — Preliminary Issue — Scope of — Mixed Questions of Law and Fact — The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC to try an issue as a preliminary issue is limited to pure questions of law relating to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force — The Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue
India Law Library Docid # 2425033

(206) HANS RAJ Vs. SURJEETO DEVI AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional Evidence in Second Appeal — Rejection Criteria — Due Diligence & Essentiality — An application for producing additional evidence at the second appeal stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is liable to be dismissed where the applicant fails to establish that despite due diligence, the evidence, which was within their knowledge, could not be produced before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court — The applicant must provide a plausible ex
India Law Library Docid # 2425034

(207) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RAM SINGH, EX. ASSISTANT LINEMAN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Double Jeopardy — Constitution of India, Art. 20(2) — Subsequent Dismissal based on Criminal Conviction — Imposition of a second, harsher penalty (dismissal from service) based solely on a subsequent criminal conviction, arising from the same incident/conduct for which a final, lesser penalty (stoppage of increments) has already been imposed and accepted following a departmental enquiry, amounts to subjecting the employee to double jeopardy for the same c
India Law Library Docid # 2425035

(208) AMARJIT KAUR Vs. HARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 35, 74, 76, 77, 82 — Proof of Parentage — Public Documents — Admissibility and Evidentiary Value — Documents such as an application for foreign citizenship made by a parent for a minor child explicitly stating parentage (Ex.P1), marriage registration certificates detailing parental lineage (Ex.P2, P7), and passport entries (Ex.P5, P6), when produced in original or as properly admissible copies, are relevant under Section 35 and possess significant evidentiary value
India Law Library Docid # 2425036

(209) SHILA DEVI ALIAS SHEELA DEVI Vs. RAM DATT[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 68, 101 — Proof of Will — Suspicious Circumstances — Onus Probandi — The propounder of a Will bears the onus not only of proving its due execution according to law but also of removing any legitimate suspicion surrounding its execution — Factors such as the execution of the Will shortly before the testator’s death, the presence and active participation of the beneficiary during the execution and registration process, the failure o
India Law Library Docid # 2425037

(210) DILBAGH SINGH Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURU NANAK NATIONAL COLLEGE, NAKODAR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 115 — Estoppel — Acceptance of Consolidated Salary — Ad-hoc/Temporary Employment — An employee appointed on a temporary/ad-hoc basis on a specified consolidated salary, who accepts such salary throughout the tenure of employment without protest or objection, may be estopped from later claiming salary arrears based on parity with regular employees or on the basis of University/Government rules, especially when the terms of appointment letters clearly stipulate payment
India Law Library Docid # 2425088

(211) PRITHI AND OTHERS Vs. SATYA NARAIN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103 — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Burden of Proof — Proof of Possession — In a suit for permanent injunction based on possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defendant’s case — The burden lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish their settled possession over the suit property at the time of filing the suit through cogent and reliable evidence — Contradictory stands taken by the plai
India Law Library Docid # 2425089

(212) SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the heavy burden of establishing a chain of evidence so complete that it is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and points unerringly towards their guilt — Each circumstance must be fully established (“must be” or “should be,” not merely “may be”) — The established facts must exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt o
India Law Library Docid # 2425090

(213) UMA DEY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Law — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Duty of Prosecution — Circumstantial Evidence — The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt — In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, excluding any hypothesis consistent with their innocence — Poor investigation does not absolve the prosecution of t
India Law Library Docid # 2425208

(214) MANEKBEN RAMA TANDEL Vs. THE COLLECTOR DAMAN AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Land Acquisition — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Procedural Compliance and Natural Justice — Land acquisition proceedings conducted under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, wherein the acquiring authority provided multiple opportunities for hearing objections, considered them (including issuing fresh reports pursuant to court directions), and followed the statutory steps like Social Impact Assessment, Rehabilit
India Law Library Docid # 2424275

(215) PRIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 3(k) — State Government’s Power to Issue Directions — Scope — Policy Matters vs. Specific Projects — The power of the State Government under Section 3(k) of the Act to issue general or special directions to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) is confined to matters of policy necessary for carrying out the Act’s purposes — This power does not extend to issuing binding directions concerning specific individua
India Law Library Docid # 2424366

(216) SRI. UMESH N. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 01-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32 — Dying Declaration — Reliability and Corroboration — Multiple Infirmities — A conviction cannot be based solely on dying declarations when they suffer from multiple infirmities and lack corroboration. Doubts regarding reliability arise from: (i) Contradictions regarding the victim’s ability to affix LTM (present on Ex.P28 recorded earlier, absent on Ex.P29 recorded later due to alleged burnt hands); (ii) Evidence suggesting the victim did not know the language (K
India Law Library Docid # 2424395

(217) MADIPAKKAM NORTH EAST RESIDENTS' WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. M. ANBALAGAN AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978) — Sections 11(3), 11(5), 11(6) — Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) — Section 4 — Lapse of Proceedings — Requirement of Actual Physical Possession — Burden of Proof — For proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, not to lapse under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the State Government must establish that actual physical
India Law Library Docid # 2424483

(218) S. RAJAN Vs. R. SRINIVASAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007) — Section 23(1) — Cancellation of Transfer/Settlement Deed — Condition for Maintenance — Implied Condition from Love and Affection — Purposive Interpretation — The condition under Section 23(1) of the Act, that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen transferor, need not be expressly stated in the transfer document (like a Settlement Deed or Gift Deed) — Where a transfe
India Law Library Docid # 2424484

(219) K. GOPINATHAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007) — Section 4 — Maintainability of Complaint — Senior Citizen having Own Income/Property — The requirement under Section 4(1) that a senior citizen must be “unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him” to be entitled to make an application for maintenance under Section 5, does not bar a senior citizen, who may have sufficient income or property, from approaching the authorities
India Law Library Docid # 2424485

(220) BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Patents Act, 1970 — Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(c) — Inventive Step — Obviousness — Nucleotide Sequences (Probes/Primers) — Surprising Effects — Discovery vs. Invention — A claim for novel nucleotide sequences (probe and corresponding primers) for identifying Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using RTD-PCR, even if derived from known HBV genome sequences, can involve an inventive step if they demonstrate surprising and unexpected technical effects over prior art sequences used for the same purpose — Where the ap
India Law Library Docid # 2424486