(261) ARUNA TALEJA ALIAS ARUNA TANEJA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, AND OTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 — Cognizance Order — Abuse of process of law — When allegations in the complaint, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law India Law Library Docid # 2427140
(262) SRI P.JAYACHANDRA REDDY Vs. THE REPATRIATES CO.OP. FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 84 — Challenge to Arbitral Award — Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator — Applicability of A&C Act vs. MSCS Act — An arbitral award passed under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act) is challenged based on the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator India Law Library Docid # 2427871
(263) K.K.GANESH @ KALIYANNAN (DIED) THROUGH LRS Vs. K.S.SUBRAMANIYAN[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Promissory Note — Suit for recovery of money — Burden of proof when execution denied — Once a promissory note’s execution and signature are denied by the defendant, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove genuineness — However, this proof does not always require an expert opinion; it can be established through other means, such as examining India Law Library Docid # 2427872
(264) M. SABAREESH Vs. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Property Law — Co-ownership — Presumption of Equal Contribution — Where a property is jointly purchased without specific mention of individual contributions, it is presumed that both purchasers contributed equally and are entitled to equal shares. India Law Library Docid # 2427896
(265) GURUVAMMAL AND OTHERS Vs. DURAI AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7, Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Limitation — A plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or if the suit appears to be barred by any law. India Law Library Docid # 2427897
(266) KARMEGAM Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 374(2) — Appeals against conviction and sentence — Murder (Penal Code, Section 302) — Circumstances of the case — Occurred within a high-security prison quarantine block — Deceased and accused were notorious criminals — Challenge to conviction based on hostile witnesses and reliance on official eyewitness. India Law Library Docid # 2427898
(267) ANAND Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 374(2) — Appeal against conviction —Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — Appreciation of Evidence — Prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused — Discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborated evidence weaken the prosecution’s case — Where the initial complaint by the deceased’s father did not mention the accused’s India Law Library Docid # 2427899
(268) SUBHA @ SUBHAKAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Criminal Law — Murder (IPC S. 302) — Kidnapping (IPC S. 364) — Wrongful Confinement (IPC S. 342) — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction based primarily on extra-judicial confession and recovery of material objects — Absence of direct evidence and hostile witnesses regarding “last seen” theory — Principles of appreciating circumstantial evidence — Requirements for conviction based on India Law Library Docid # 2427900
(269) C.KRISHNIAH CHETTY AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Sections 47 & 57 — Rectification of Register — Maintainability of Petition — “Person aggrieved” — Disputes between two equally-divided shareholder groups (Hayagriv and Narayan families) in a company (Petitioner) over historical family business name ‘C.Krishniah Chetty’ — Petitioner (Hayagriv group-controlled) seeking rectification against Respondent (Narayan group-controlled) for deceptively similar marks — Petitioner qualifies as “person India Law Library Docid # 2427901
(270) JAGJEET WADHWA Vs. SMT. SUNITA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Limitation — Cause of action — A suit appearing from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation, can be summarily dismissed at the threshold without necessarily recording evidence — If it is apparent from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Court should not India Law Library Docid # 2427966
(271) ABDUL JABBAR (DEAD) THROUGHL.RS. SMT. SURAIYA BEGUM Vs. BANIBAI (DEAD) THROUGHL.RS. SMT. SONIRAGHAVSAXENA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 22 — Cross-Objection — Scope of — A respondent can challenge an adverse finding of the trial court without filing a formal cross-objection if such challenge does not seek to modify or vary the decree in their favor, but merely aims to support the decree as passed — If the decree needs modification or variation, a formal written cross-objection is necessary — The 1976 India Law Library Docid # 2427967
(272) JAGDISH (DEAD) THR. LRS MURARILAL AND OTHERS Vs. VAIKUNTHI (DEAD) THR. LRS SMT. KALAVATI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 18-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 27 — Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court — Scope and conditions — Additional evidence, such as a handwriting expert’s opinion, cannot be adduced as a matter of course or routine in appeal — Conditions for admitting additional evidence are stringent: (1) if the trial court refused admissible evidence, or (2) if the party, despite due diligence, could not India Law Library Docid # 2427968
(273) BAJRANG PRATAP SINGH @ AMIT BHADORIYA Vs. MUKESH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 18-06-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Permanent Disability — Loss of Earning Capacity — Medical Evidence — While a doctor can certify the extent of permanent disability, the assessment of loss of earning capacity (due to the permanent disability) falls to the Tribunal, considering the nature of profession/occupation, age, education, and other factors of the injured, not just the India Law Library Docid # 2427969
(274) SAPNA SANGEETA VENTURES LLP AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-06-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Reference to Arbitration — Conditions precedent — When a valid arbitration agreement exists, reference to arbitration is mandatory unless the court finds, prima facie, that no valid agreement exists — The Commercial Court’s finding that an arbitration agreement exists and the original agreement has been filed necessitates referral to arbitration — The court India Law Library Docid # 2427961
(275) STATE OF MADYA PRADESH Vs. SMT. SHINGAR BAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 96 — First Appeal — Scope of — Appeal against judgment and decree granting declaration and mandatory injunction — Trial Court’s findings upheld regarding limitation, res judicata, and plaintiffs’ bhumiswami rights over land initially marked as ‘Pathar’ but later shown as State land in revenue records — Appellate court reviews the correctness of trial court’s decision on these India Law Library Docid # 2427962
(276) SWAMI DATT PYASI AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.VIDYA BAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 96 — First Appeal — Setting aside judgment and decree — Where the trial court’s finding regarding the execution and validity of a Will is found to be erroneous, perverse, and contrary to law, and the appellate court finds that the Will was duly executed and proved, the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit based on such erroneous finding are liable India Law Library Docid # 2427963
(277) CHETAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-06-2025 Writ Petition — Maintainability — Availability of Alternate Remedy — The High Court typically does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, unless the case falls into specific exceptions: enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice principles, proceedings being wholly without jurisdiction, or challenge India Law Library Docid # 2427964
(278) R. THANGARATHINAM Vs. R.CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 16-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 4 — Pleading Misrepresentation — Burden of Proof — Civil Suits — Specific and clear pleadings are required when alleging misrepresentation regarding the contents and allotment of properties under a deed — The burden to prove such misrepresentation lies upon the party alleging it — In this case, the plaintiff, an educated individual involved in a India Law Library Docid # 2427902
(279) MOHIT SADANA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-06-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Jurisdiction — Eviction Suit — An eviction suit for a shop, even if it is used for trade or business, does not automatically become a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, unless it meets the criteria of “specified value” and the immovable property is “exclusively used in trade India Law Library Docid # 2427945
(280) ADITYA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 16-06-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sanction for prosecution — Validity of Sanction — Applicability of mind — Competent authority — When prosecution has already commenced and cognizance taken, challenge to the validity of a sanction order on grounds of non-application of mind or lack of competence of the sanctioning authority India Law Library Docid # 2427946