ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(281) DILIP TRIPATHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Evidence — Hostile Witness — Evidentiary Value — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 145, 154 — Court observed that merely because a witness resiles from parts of police statement, entire testimony not discarded — Portions corroborating earlier testimony, if duly supported, can be relied upon — Deviations may be natural but testimony read as a whole, if truthful, can be relied upon.
India Law Library Docid # 2423962

(282) M/S. PRARAM INFRA THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI PRAYANK JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 160 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Notice to Advocate — A notice issued under S. 160 Cr.P.C. to an advocate, requiring appearance and signature sample merely for verifying a signature on a notice previously sent by the advocate on behalf of the complainant to the accused, is impermissible and liable to be quashed — Such an advocate, acting solely in their professional capacity for the complainant and not involved in any illegal purpose related to the
India Law Library Docid # 2424136

(283) RADHIKA KAMAL MIRANI @ RASHMI VIJAY RIJHWANI Vs. NISHA PURSHOTAM MIRANI[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXVII Rule 1(2)(b)(i) — Summary Suit — Debt or Liquidated Demand — Requirement of Written Contract — A summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1(2)(b)(i) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking recovery of a debt or liquidated demand in money based on a contract, is maintainable only if such debt or demand arises “on a written contract” — The legislative history, particularly the 1966 Bombay High Court Amendment and the 1976 Central Amendment to the CPC, makes
India Law Library Docid # 2424279

(284) SMT. RAJAVVA Vs. MALLESH AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 372 (Proviso) — Appeal Against Acquittal by Victim/Complainant — Scope of Appellate Review — While an appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal (filed by the victim/complainant under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC) has full power to review, re-appreciate, and reconsider the entire evidence, it must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence favouring the accused (initial presumption plus reinforcement by acquittal) — Interference with acqu
India Law Library Docid # 2424438

(285) HERITAGE FOODS (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. GOOD HEALTH AGROTECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 12 — Honest Concurrent Use — Registration of Identical/Similar Marks — Where evidence demonstrates that the respondent adopted and commercially used the trademark ‘HERITAGE’ for specific goods (edible oils) honestly and bona fide from a date (early 1995) nearly contemporaneous with the petitioner’s commencement of commercial use of the same mark for different goods (dairy products etc., from 1993-94), such use qualifies as ‘honest concurrent use’ under Section 12,
India Law Library Docid # 2424457

(286) JACOB P. PAUL @ THAMPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 239 — Discharge — Scope of Consideration — At the stage of considering an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the court’s inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists against the accused based on the materials produced by the prosecution (final report and accompanying documents) — The court must proceed on the assumption that the prosecution material is true and evaluate if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at face v
India Law Library Docid # 2424589

(287) KORAH A.G Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 173(8) — Further Investigation — Power of Magistrate — A Magistrate has the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC at any stage before the commencement of the trial, which begins only after charges are framed — The dismissal of a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC does not extinguish this power, as the trial has not yet commenced.
India Law Library Docid # 2424590

(288) MOBITHA M.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) — Section 3(1) — Preventive Detention — Detention while in Judicial Custody — Compelling Reasons — Subjective Satisfaction — An order of preventive detention under KAAPA can be validly passed against a person already in judicial custody if the detaining authority, based on reliable materials, forms a subjective satisfaction that (a) there is a real possibility of the person being released on bail, and (b) upon such release, the person
India Law Library Docid # 2424591

(289) VEMULA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every possible hypothesis of innocence — Each circumstance must be fully proved, consistent only with guilt, and conclusive in nature.
India Law Library Docid # 2424775

(290) CHIMAKURTHI NAGA VENKATA SAI KIRAN Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail) [Corresponding to Cr.P.C., S. 438] — Nature and Scope — Exercise of Power — The power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS is an extraordinary judicial remedy that must be exercised sparingly, with caution and circumspection, and only in exceptional circumstances where a clear case is made out — It is not to be granted as a matter of routine. The court must consider various factors including the nat
India Law Library Docid # 2424817

(291) NATHU RAM AND OTHERS Vs. LILA DEVI AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63(c) — Execution and Attestation of Will — A Will is validly executed if signed/thumb-marked by the testator and attested by at least two witnesses who witness the testator’s signature/mark or receive personal acknowledgment thereof, and who sign in the testator’s presence — There is no requirement for attesting witnesses to disclose the place or specific time of execution or attestation, nor must they sign the scribe’s register — The deposition of attesting witn
India Law Library Docid # 2425019

(292) JORA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Basis for Summoning — The power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously based on evidence recorded during the trial that indicates a strong likelihood of the proposed accused having committed the offence. (Para 17)

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Consideration of Evidence — Before summoning additional accused, the trial court is obliged to consider and discuss the complete relevant mat
India Law Library Docid # 2425020

(293) GIAN CHAND GARG Vs. HARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 118 & 139 — Presumption of Consideration and Debt — Once the signature on a cheque is admitted or proved, the court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the cheque was made for consideration and received by the holder for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability — The burden to rebut these presumptions shifts to the accused
India Law Library Docid # 2425021

(294) OM PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Standard for Summoning — The power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial indicating a degree of complicity greater than required for framing charge, though short of that needed for conviction.
India Law Library Docid # 2425022

(295) NOOR MOHAMMED @ SHAHBAZ @ SIKENDER AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120B, 364A, 342 — Criminal Conspiracy — Kidnapping for Ransom — Wrongful Confinement — Proof — A charge of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) to commit offences like kidnapping for ransom (Section 364A) and wrongful confinement (Section 342) can be established by proving the hatching of the conspiracy and acts done in furtherance thereof through consistent testimonies of witnesses (including accomplices/approvers, if corroborated), seizure evidence, identification evi
India Law Library Docid # 2425210

(296) DQS CERTIFICATION INDIA PVT.LTD. Vs. ISACA INC. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with S. 151 — Rejection/Return of Plaint — Application by Defendant No.1 — Instant application filed by defendant No.1 seeking rejection/return of plaint instituted by Indian plaintiff, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the governing License Agreement favouring foreign courts and principles of forum non conveniens.
India Law Library Docid # 2423963

(297) SHASMITH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Rejection of Plaint — Pre-institution Mediation — Petition challenges Trial Court's order dismissing defendant/petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of a commercial suit on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
India Law Library Docid # 2423964

(298) M/S DEWAN CHAND Vs. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrator — Procedural History — Successive Petitions — Withdrawal of Prior Petitions — The present petition represents the petitioner's third attempt to seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 — The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to file afresh— The second petition was subsequently filed and later dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, without any liberty being granted to file afresh.
India Law Library Docid # 2423965

(299) PARMESHWAR KUMAR BAGGA Vs. AVINASH BAGGA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151, Section 144 — Consent Decree — Application for Setting Aside — Challenge to Dismissal — Petition filed under Article 227 challenging Trial Court's order dated 20.09.2022, which dismissed petitioner/plaintiff's application seeking setting aside of a consent decree passed on 01.07.2022 in a suit for possession and mesne profits against his brother.
India Law Library Docid # 2423966

(300) VINOD RAGHUVANSHI Vs. AJAY ARORA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 391 — Additional Evidence in Appeal — Scope and Limitations — The power vested in the appellate court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to take additional evidence is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly — It is primarily intended for situations where the party seeking to adduce evidence was prevented from doing so during the trial despite due diligence, or where new facts necessitating such evidence came to light later — The core objective is to ensure j
India Law Library Docid # 2424137