(261) RAMSWAROOP @ PAPPU Vs. MOOLCHAND SAINI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Judicial Discipline — Promptness in Delivery of Judgments — Constitution of India — Article 21 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order XX Rule 1 — Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 19(8) — Judicial discipline requires promptness in the delivery of judgments after arguments are heard and concluded — Keeping judgments reserved indefinitely, especially beyond the timelines indicated in Order XX Rule 1 CPC (ordinarily within 30/60 days) and specific statutes like Section 19(8) of the Raj India Law Library Docid # 2425442
(262) INDRA DUDI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 38 — Removal and Suspension of Members/Chairpersons — Grounds and Procedure — Section 38 of the Act empowers the State Government to remove from office any member, Chairperson, or Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution who refuses to act, becomes incapable of acting, or is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct, after affording an opportunity of hearing and making necessary enquiry — Sub-section (4) allo India Law Library Docid # 2425473
(263) SANTU LAL SAINI Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 31(5) and 34(3) — Limitation for Application to Set Aside Award — Commencement from Date of Receipt of Award — The limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act to set aside an arbitral award commences from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the award by the party, as mandated by Section 31(5) — The court has the power to condone a delay of India Law Library Docid # 2425474
(264) RAJENDRA PRASAD @ RAJENDRA KUMAR KASERA Vs. PRABHUDAYAL KASERA CHARITABLE TRUST, SHRIMADHOPUR DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJ.) AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 — Sections 73 and 74 — Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts — Scope — The bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Sections 73 and 74 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, applies to matters which are required to be decided or dealt with by an officer or authority under the Act — However, this bar does not extend to suits seeking a declaration that a sale deed pertaining to trust property is null and void ab initio, especially when no relief is sought whic India Law Library Docid # 2425475
(265) ASHIRWAD INDUSTRIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) — Section 107(2) — Appeal by Department — Service of Notice to Assessee — Principles of Natural Justice — When an appeal is preferred by the department under Section 107(2) of the CGST Act against an order, proper service of notice of such appeal to the assessee (petitioner firm) is mandatory — Deciding the appeal ex-parte without ensuring due service of notice, especially when the assessee has a registered office in a different state (Ghaziaba India Law Library Docid # 2425537
(266) M/S. KATARIYA PACKAGING PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (NOW COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX)[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-04-2025 M.P. VAT Act, 2002 — Section 52(2) — Limitation for Penalty Order — Initiation of Proceedings — The one-year limitation period for passing a penalty order under Section 52(2) of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002, commences from the date of “initiation of such proceeding.” — Where penalty proceedings under Section 52 were proposed due to submission of a false Challan discovered during assessment proceedings under Section 20, and a fresh notice for penalty was issued after the final order under Section 20, t India Law Library Docid # 2425538
(267) BHOOP SINGH Vs. VIJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Contract Act, 1872 — Section 74 — Forfeiture of Earnest Money — Agreement to Sell — Breach by Purchaser — Where an agreement to sell explicitly provides for forfeiture of earnest money upon default by the proposed purchaser, and the amount quantified as earnest money is less than 25% of the total sale consideration, the seller is entitled to forfeit such earnest money — The fact that the agreement uses terms like “peshagi” (earnest money) and “majeeb peshagi” (total earnest money) and the defaul India Law Library Docid # 2425550
(268) ABDUL AAHAD @ AAHAD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail) — Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — Section 80 (Dowry death/Offences relating to death of wife soon after marriage) — Grant of Anticipatory Bail — Considerations — Petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving the death of the petitioner’s wife within a year of marriage – Allegations included demands for dowry, harassment, and death by strangulation — Forensic medical opinion based on photographs indicated s India Law Library Docid # 2425551
(269) SMT. KAMLA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-04-2025 M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Section 12(1)(f) — Bonafide Requirement — Subsequent Events (Sale of Other Shops) — The bonafide requirement of a landlord for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) is to be judged primarily as pleaded — The sale of other shops by the landlord during the pendency of the eviction suit, especially if explained as due to financial need for starting the proposed business, does not automatically negate the bonafide requirement for the suit shop — The choice of the lan India Law Library Docid # 2425565
(270) M/S EMPIRE STEEL HOLDINGS THROUGH PROPRIETOR MRS. AKRITI MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 29 — Cancellation of GST Registration — Physical Verification — Rule 25, GST Rules 2017 — Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect based on a physical verification finding the registered premises locked, without proper adherence to Rule 25 of GST Rules, 2017 (which requires verification in the presence of the person and uploading of GST REG-30), is arbitrary and unjustified — A visit note signed only by the inspecting officer, India Law Library Docid # 2425566
(271) VARUN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Quashing of FIR — General and Omnibus Allegations — FIR and chargesheet under Section 498-A IPC are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS when the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are general, vague, and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details about the date, time, and nature of incidents — Mere incordial relations or quarrels between husband and wife, without specific instances constituting cruelty as defined under Sectio India Law Library Docid # 2425567
(272) BALVINDER SINGH SETHI Vs. INDRAJEET SINGH SETHI[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-04-2025 Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 2(15) — Instrument of Partition vs. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) — A document that merely acknowledges a past oral partition or records a settlement of property already owned by individuals, and does not itself create, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in joint family property amongst co-owners, is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a mere statement of fact, not an “instrument of partition” under Section 2(15) of the Indian India Law Library Docid # 2425568
(273) RAMAKANT VIJAYWARGIYA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) / Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 427 Cr.P.C. / Section 467 BNSS — Concurrent Running of Sentences — Discretionary Power — Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. (now S. 467 BNSS) confers discretionary power upon the Court to direct that a subsequent sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently with a previous sentence — This discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence(s) and the overall facts and circumstanc India Law Library Docid # 2425569
(274) MANISH @ MAHESH SOLIYA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-04-2025 M.P. Excise Act, 1915 — Sections 47-A and 47-D — Interim Custody of Vehicle (Supurdginama) — Jurisdiction of Criminal Court — The bar on the jurisdiction of a criminal Court under Section 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, to make orders about the disposal or custody of a seized vehicle applies only after it has received an intimation from the Collector under Section 47-A(3)(a) about the initiation of confiscation proceedings — If an application for interim custody (supurdginama) under Sections India Law Library Docid # 2425570
(275) ARVIND KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Service Law — Correction of Date of Birth — Casual Labour Card vs. Service Book Entry — When the initial Casual Labour Service Card, issued at the time of joining, records a specific date of birth and age consistent with the minimum entry age, and there is no overwriting or correction in the age column of that card, this entry is significant — If a different date of birth is subsequently and erroneously recorded in the main service book without supporting documentation, and departmental authorit India Law Library Docid # 2425571
(276) SURINDER KUMAR Vs. JAWAHAR LAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Constitution of India, Article 227 — Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Liberal Approach for Substantial Justice — Interference by High Court — The High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, should be slow to interfere with an order of the lower appellate court condoning delay in filing an appeal, especially when the delay is explained by reasons such as old age, ill health (including heart problems requiring stenting), and th India Law Library Docid # 2425547
(277) HARSH KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Determination — For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law (including limitation), only the averments made in the plaint are to be seen and considered — The court must construe the statement in the plaint and cannot look into the written statement or any other material — No evidence or merits of the India Law Library Docid # 2425548
(278) RATTAN WATI AND OTHERS Vs. SAVITA CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Scope of Enquiry — For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint can be considered, without examining evidence or the merits of the controversy — The defence taken by the defendant cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint — If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action, the application for rejection must India Law Library Docid # 2425549
(279) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. ARUNA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation in Death Case — Deceased Businessman, Aged 42 Years — Calculation of Compensation — Application of Future Prospects, Multiplier, and Conventional Heads — In a motor accident claim arising from the death of a 42-year-old businessman with an assessed annual income of Rs. 3,75,000/-, the compensation was re-assessed by — (i) adding 25% for future prospects as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi; (ii) applying a multiplier of India Law Library Docid # 2425590
(280) ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 and Section 147 — Compounding of Offences — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 320 — Compromise effected after conviction and dismissal of appeal — Revision petition against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act — Parties effected compromise, and entire cheque amount paid to complainant who consented to nullification of proceedings — Held, an offence under Section 138 NI Act can be compounded under Section 147 NI Act even after conv India Law Library Docid # 2425591