ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(221) MINI VINOD KUMAR Vs. K. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Trusts Act, 1882 — Section 63 — Following Trust Property — Where trust property is disposed of and the proceeds can be traced, the beneficiary has rights nearly the same as in the original property.
India Law Library Docid # 2424593

(222) M/S REEMA ASSOCIATES Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Customs Act, 1962 — Section 110A — Provisional Release of Seized Goods — Discretionary Power — Prohibited Goods — Section 110A confers discretionary power upon the adjudicating authority to provisionally release seized goods pending adjudication, upon taking a bond and imposing necessary security and conditions — This provision applies generally to “any goods... seized under section 110” — While the import policy may classify certain goods as ‘prohibited’ if they fail to meet specific requiremen
India Law Library Docid # 2424722

(223) NETHI VIDYASAGAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528] — Quashing of Cognizance Order and Proceedings — Scope of Inquiry — Abuse of Process — Political Rivalry — In exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (S. 528 BNSS), particularly when factors like potential political rivalry or ulterior motives are alleged, the Court is not limited to accepting the charge sheet averments at face value — It can scrutinize the accompanying materials, witne
India Law Library Docid # 2424834

(224) SMT. K. JYOTHI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 — Sections 3(2)(b), 4(1)(a) — Grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) — Lands Excluded — Tank Beds, FTL, Submerged Lands — Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) cannot be legally granted under the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, in respect of lands falling within categories explicitly excluded under Section 4(1)(a), such as tanks, tank beds, irrigation works, streams, and rivers, or lands falling within the Full Tank Level (FTL) / s
India Law Library Docid # 2424843

(225) M/S. RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Suppression of Material Facts — Doctrine of Clean Hands — A petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking relief is liable to be dismissed at the threshold if the petitioner approaches the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts — Where petitioners falsely contended ignorance of a sub-contract agreement despite documentary evidence (correspondence, reference to bank guarantees) demonstrating their awareness and involv
India Law Library Docid # 2424844

(226) NANDYALA JAYA RAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 243-O & 329(b) — Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — Section 204 — Election Law — Judicial Interference — Bar on Courts — The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, must exercise restraint and ordinarily refrain from interfering with the election process once it has commenced Articles 243-O and 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 204 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, create a bar against judicial intervention in electoral matters
India Law Library Docid # 2424886

(227) RATHI VASUDEVA RAO Vs. P V R M PATNAIK[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — Section 21 — Award of Lok Adalat — Deemed Decree — Executability— Section 21 creates a legal fiction whereby every award passed by a Lok Adalat, based on compromise or settlement, is deemed to be a decree of a civil court — This deeming provision applies irrespective of whether the case was referred by a civil court or a criminal court — Consequently, such an award is executable by the civil court as if it were a decree passed by it
India Law Library Docid # 2424904

(228) S.C. BAJAJ Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 118 & 139 — Presumption — Rebuttal — Once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proved (mere admission of signature is sufficient per Bir Singh), the presumptions under Sections 118 (consideration) and 139 (existence of legally enforceable debt/liability) arise against the accused — The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut these presumptions by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, showing the non-existence of the
India Law Library Docid # 2425002

(229) MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 279 & 304A — Rash and Negligent Act vs. High Speed — Driving a vehicle at “high speed” does not, per se, constitute a “rash or negligent act” required for conviction under Sections 279 or 304A IPC — “High speed” is a relative term, and the prosecution must establish through evidence what speed was involved and how it amounted to rashness or negligence in the specific circumstances, causing endangerment to human life or death.
India Law Library Docid # 2425003

(230) DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 204 — Issuance of Summons in Complaint Case — A Magistrate can issue summons against accused in a private complaint only after careful scrutiny of the pre-summoning evidence and upon being satisfied that sufficient ground exists for proceeding — The material must prima facie disclose essential ingredients of the offences alleged; summons should not be issued lightly or mechanically
India Law Library Docid # 2425004

(231) SMT. SHASHI GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS Vs. NARINDER KUMAR SOOD (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 21 Rule 102 — Objections by Transferee Pendente Lite — Objections filed under Order 21 Rule 97 or 99 CPC by a third party resisting execution are expressly barred by Rule 102 if that party is a transferee pendente lite from the judgment-debtor, having acquired the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed — The Executing Court is debarred from entertaining or adjudicating
India Law Library Docid # 2425026

(232) JAGDISH Vs. HARISH CHANDER AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17, Proviso — Amendment After Commencement of Trial — The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC strictly prohibits the allowance of an application for amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began.
India Law Library Docid # 2425027

(233) SATBIR AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM NARAIN AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Hindu Law — Inheritance — Widow’s Remarriage (Karewa) — Under customary law, as recognized by judicial precedents and prior legislation (like the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856), a widow upon contracting a Karewa marriage (a recognized form of remarriage) is divested of her right to the property inherited from her deceased husband — Her estate in that property ceases upon remarriage.
India Law Library Docid # 2425028

(234) NIRMAL SINGH SEHMBEY Vs. KULDIP SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser — An application by a subsequent purchaser to be impleaded in a suit concerning the property is liable to be dismissed if the transfer occurred during the pendency of the lis and the original vendor, from whom the applicant purchased, was already a party — The doctrine of lis pendens applies, making the subsequent purchaser neither a necessary nor a proper party whose presence is required for adjudication.
India Law Library Docid # 2425029

(235) KISHAN CHAND (THROUGH LRS) AND OTHERS Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Proof — In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff (vendee) must plead and prove their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the agreement.
India Law Library Docid # 2425030

(236) MANJU PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in Fatal Accident Claim (FAO-5554-2011) — Assessment Principles — Unmarried Deceased Aged 20 — Multiplier Selection — Future Prospects — Conventional Heads — For assessing compensation in the case of a deceased aged 20 years and unmarried, the relevant principles include
India Law Library Docid # 2425031

(237) DALBARA SINGH @ DARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306 & 498-A — Sentencing — Modification of Sentence — Prayer Limited to Sentence Reduction — Principle of Proportionality — Where an appeal against conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC is restricted only to the quantum of sentence, the court considers factors like the sentence already undergone, the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for the specific offences, the period elapsed since the incident, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing
India Law Library Docid # 2425032

(238) KAMALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 16(4A) — Reservation in Promotion — Requirement of Quantifiable Data on Inadequacy of Representation — Before providing for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) under Article 16(4A), the State is mandatorily required to collect quantifiable data to demonstrate the inadequacy of representation of these categories in the relevant posts — This exercise must precede the formation of the opinion and the issuance of
India Law Library Docid # 2425116

(239) M/S. KESORAM RAYON AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11A — Powers of Industrial Tribunal — Re-appreciation of Evidence — Domestic Enquiry — Section 11A empowers the Industrial Tribunal, when adjudicating a dispute relating to dismissal or discharge, to re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself as to the guilt of the workman — The Tribunal is not bound by the findings of the domestic enquiry officer and can differ both on the finding of misconduct and the appropriateness of
India Law Library Docid # 2425209

(240) ANITA DEVI @ MAYA Vs. OMPRAKASH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103; Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Proof of Will — Burden of Proof — In a suit challenging the validity of a Will, while the initial onus lies on the propounder (defendant asserting the Will) to establish its due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances, the burden to prove that the Will is forged, fabricated, or otherwise invalid rests on the party alleging it (plaintiffs challenging the Will) — Framing an issue regarding the Will's invalidity with t
India Law Library Docid # 2424101