ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(221) RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 (Proviso) — Amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial — Due Diligence — Burden on party seeking amendment to show that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier — Allegation of “recently learned” about registered deeds executed in 2008-2009, challenged 14 years later — Absence of specific details on when and how information was obtained — Lack of any reflection of new information in
India Law Library Docid # 2426168

(222) HIMADRI DOWERAH Vs. RAJIV DUTTA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and first appellate court — Interference by High Court — High Court in revisional jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal and cannot re-appreciate or re-assess evidence to reach a different finding of facts, even if its view differs from the court below — Interference is permissible if findings are perverse, without material evidence, based on no evidence or misrea
India Law Library Docid # 2426169

(223) BIREN CH. DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Distinction — Principles enunciated in _State of AP Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr., AIR 1977 SC 45_ and _Kishore Singh and Anr. vs. The State of M.P., AIR 1977 Sc 2267_ reiterated — To sustain a charge of murder under Section 300, prosecution must prove the act falls within one of its four clauses — Even proving an act falls under Section 299 does not automatically constitute murder if n
India Law Library Docid # 2426170

(224) MOHESWAR KALITA Vs. BISWA NATH JAJODIA[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of interference with findings of fact — High Court’s power confined to examining if findings of fact by first appellate court are according to law and do not suffer from any error of law — Findings can be corrected if perverse, arrived at without considering material evidence, based on no evidence, misreading evidence, or grossly erroneous leading to miscarriage of justice — Revisional power not equivalent to appellate po
India Law Library Docid # 2426171

(225) SAMAR DEBANGSI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354 & 376 read with 511 — Outraging Modesty & Attempt to Commit Rape — Proof and Appreciation of Evidence — Appeal against conviction under Ss. 354 & 376/511 IPC — Court analysed evidence of prosecutrix (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses regarding the incident in a sugarcane field — Considered issues of delay in FIR, inconsistencies between FIR and deposition, non-exhibition of injury report, non-seizure of clothes by IO, and alleged land dispute motive
India Law Library Docid # 2425160

(226) GOVINDA KRISHNA GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SIBA PADA DAS AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 58(c) — Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition of Repurchase — Distinction — A transaction where a sale deed is executed and a separate, contemporaneous agreement for reconveyance is executed between the parties does not constitute a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the TPA, especially in view of the Proviso added by Act 20 of 1929 which requires the condition of repurchase to be embodied in the same document that effects
India Law Library Docid # 2425161

(227) MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 39(6) — Suspension of Member/Chairperson — Grounds and Judicial Review — Section 39(6) empowers the State Government to suspend a member (including a Chairperson) against whom proceedings for removal under Section 39 have commenced, pending conclusion of the inquiry — While suspension is not a penalty and is normally ordered when allegations of misconduct or corruption are under scrutiny, the power, especially concerning elected public representatives
India Law Library Docid # 2425476

(228) DR. DEVA RAM SHIVRAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16, 21 and 41 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 2(h), 2(r), 2(s), 3, 20, 21 — Discrimination in Public Employment — Non-Benchmark Disability — Medical Unfitness for one Cadre but Fitness for Similar Cadre — Denying a meritorious candidate appointment to a preferred non-technical service cadre (like Rajasthan Administrative Service - RAS) solely on grounds of a visual impairment (Congenital Nystagmus) that does not meet the 40% benchma
India Law Library Docid # 2425477

(229) PHOOL CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Suit Barred by Limitation — Oral Agreement — A suit based on an alleged oral agreement (for sale of property) entered into several years prior (in this case, an agreement of 1996 for which a suit was filed in 2023) is prima facie barred by limitation — An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of such a plaint on the ground of limitation should be allowed if the plaint, on its face, discloses that the suit is time-
India Law Library Docid # 2425478

(230) NIRANJAN SINGH KAURAV Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Acquittal in Criminal Trial on Same Facts — Effect on Disciplinary Proceedings — When departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on an identical and similar set of facts, charges, evidence, and witnesses, and the employee is honorably acquitted in the criminal trial after a full contest, the findings of guilt in the departmental enquiry are not sustainable — If the star witness for the prosecution (complainant in a trap case) deposes in the c
India Law Library Docid # 2425541

(231) KAMLABAI Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-04-2025
M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 — Rule 3 — Presentation of Election Petition — Mandatory Requirements — Rule 3 mandates that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer either by the person making the petition or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the petitioner — Presentation by an advocate under a general vakalatnama without specific written authorization to present the petition is not a
India Law Library Docid # 2425542

(232) MANOHAR LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Electricity Act, 1910 — Section 26(6) — Dispute regarding correctness of meter — Estimation of energy supplied — Penalty for fake meter seals — Where an electricity meter was found intact in a prior inspection (26.11.1985) but its seals were allegedly found fake in a subsequent inspection (13.05.1986), the liability for penalty, if any, under Section 26(6) of the Act should be determined by considering the default period at best from the date of the last correct inspection to the date of the fre
India Law Library Docid # 2425552

(233) BHAGAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Applicability to Subsequent Suit after Dismissal of Writ Petition involving same Land and Parties — Where a plaintiff, after having his writ petition (CWP-2384-1971) concerning rights over evacuee land dismissed by the High Court, files a subsequent civil suit pertaining to the same land in dispute, the suit is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata, especially when the plaintiff was a party (petitioner No.6) to the said writ pet
India Law Library Docid # 2425553

(234) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Death Case — Assessment — Future Prospects — Deceased aged 36 years, engaged in agricultural pursuit — Insurance company appealed against quantum — Tribunal added 50% for future prospects — Held, following National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, for a deceased aged 36 years, future prospects should be 40% instead of 50%.
India Law Library Docid # 2425554

(235) NAVRAJ KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. SUNNY MASIH OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Enhancement — Just Compensation — Appeal for enhancement dismissed. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 74,93,842/-. The deceased, a Head Constable aged 45.5 years, had a net monthly income of Rs. 44,205/- (annual Rs. 5,30,465/-) after deduction of income tax. 30% future prospects were added — After 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14, loss of dependency was Rs. 72,40,842/- — Conventional heads were also
India Law Library Docid # 2425555

(236) HARISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Criminal Procedure — Interference by Executive in Judicial Process — Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) ordering fresh medical board for re-examination of injuries in a sub judice criminal case pending trial before Sessions Court — Validity — Separation of Powers — Rule of Law — Due Process — Petition under Section 528 BNSS against SDM (Respondent No.3) for interfering in a sub judice matter arising from an FIR where charges including Section 307 IPC had been framed and a prior application
India Law Library Docid # 2425598

(237) LUCKY KUMAR Vs. SUSHMA ARYA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Concurrent findings of conviction — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope of interference — When there are concurrent findings of conviction by two courts, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not supposed to act as an appellate court and the scope of interference is extremely low — The object of revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law, not to dwell at len
India Law Library Docid # 2425599

(238) JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Punjab Excise Act (1 of 1914) — Section 61(i)(c) — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Sections 3 and 4 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 360 and 361 — Release on probation — Petitioner convicted under Punjab Excise Act — Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has family responsibilities, faced trial for over 24 years, and has undergone a substantial part of the sentence — Considering these factors and the object of probation to reform first-time offenders, the sentence is modified to r
India Law Library Docid # 2425600

(239) KIRAN SARANGAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S ALLROUND SPORTING BALLS AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by Appellate Court — Conditions for — Unwarranted remand — The First Appellate Court can remit a matter back to the trial court only after setting aside the trial court’s judgment on merits and concluding that a re-trial is necessary, as mandated by Order 41 Rule 23A — Appellate courts should be circumspect in ordering remands, especially when the case is not covered by Rules 23, 23A, or 25, to avoid giving litigation an undeser
India Law Library Docid # 2425601

(240) KANSHIRAM SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 161 — Statement recorded thereunder — Discrepancies with court testimony — Material discrepancies between child witness’s statement under Section 161 and his testimony in court, particularly regarding mother’s involvement in assault and father’s drunken state, cast doubt on the reliability of the child witness’s testimony.
India Law Library Docid # 2425664