(361) KALU SINGH Vs. STATE[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 319 — Summoning Additional Accused — Standard of Proof Required — Material Contradictions in Evidence — The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused should not be exercised lightly or mechanically — A higher degree of satisfaction is required than merely prima facie case formation during charge framing — The evidence adduced during trial, forming the basis for summoning, must be scrutinized carefully — Significant contradic India Law Library Docid # 2425051
(362) HARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Power to Summon Additional Accused — The power conferred upon the trial court by Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person not being an accused, based on evidence adduced during inquiry or trial, is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only where circumstances strongly warrant it to ensure complete justice. India Law Library Docid # 2425011
(363) VED PARKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 28 read with Section 18A — Penalty for Non-Disclosure — Conviction under Section 28 for contravention of Section 18A (failure to disclose the source of drug acquisition) is unsustainable against retailers or distributors who, upon being required by a Drug Inspector, furnish the name, address, and particulars (including purchase bills) of the person (distributor or manufacturer, respectively) from whom they acquired the drug — Such disclosure constitutes co India Law Library Docid # 2425012
(364) LAL MOHAN POREL @ LALMOHAN @ LALU POREL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 375 (as applicable pre-amendment) & Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Age of Prosecutrix — Promise to Marry — Where the prosecutrix alleges rape based on sexual intercourse under a promise to marry, but the evidence (including ossification test suggesting majority, though report not produced) indicates she was likely above 16 years (the then relevant age under S.375 Sixthly) and thus capable of giving valid consent, and her conduct shows voluntary participation in the rel India Law Library Docid # 2425212
(365) DR. RICHA SHARMA Vs. DR. M.K. SEXENA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of a written statement after the commencement of trial is permissible only if the party seeking amendment demonstrates due diligence and provides sufficient reasons for the omission in the original pleading — High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order that rejected the petitioner-defendant's application for amendment of the written statement filed after the commencement of evidence, finding that the petitioner fail India Law Library Docid # 2423792
(366) ROHIT MAHAJAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 read with 34 — While general and vague allegations in FIRs arising from matrimonial disputes may warrant quashing to prevent abuse of process, FIRs containing specific details of alleged harassment, corroborated by evidence, are maintainable and should proceed to trial — High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings related to allegations o India Law Library Docid # 2423793
(367) SEWA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 201, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 — In a revision against conviction, High Court has a limited scope to correct patent defects or errors of law, and in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not reverse the trial court's judgment unless the trial court's view is perverse, particularly concerning the identification of previously unknown accused, which requires corroboration beyond a dock identification — High Court allowed a criminal revis India Law Library Docid # 2423794
(368) PRADEEP SYNGHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Judicial Review — Disciplinary Proceedings against Judicial Officer — Scope of Interference — The scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of disciplinary inquiries against public servants, including judicial officers, is circumscribed — The Court does not act as an appellate authority and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority — Interference is warranted only on limited grounds such a India Law Library Docid # 2423958
(369) STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DHARMINDER SINGH ETC.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 41(2), 42 and 43 — Search and Seizure — Private Vehicle vs. Public Conveyance in Transit/Public Place — Applicability — Section 43 applies to search and seizure in a 'public place' or 'in transit', and its Explanation clarifies 'public place' includes 'public conveyance' — Section 42 applies to search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place based on prior information — A harmonious construction, following State of Rajasthan v. India Law Library Docid # 2423959
(370) M/S CIVIC ENGINEERS (INDIA) Vs. SURENDER L. MEENA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 11 and 12 — Civil Contempt — Wilful Disobedience of Court Order — DDA Official — Respondent found in deliberate and wilful disobedience of High Court's directions dated 31.05.2022 — Directions required conversion of petitioner's property from leasehold to freehold within three months, based on respondent/DDA's counsel's statement acknowledging eligibility under DDA Circular dated India Law Library Docid # 2423970
(371) MS. RUCHI KALRA AND OTHERS Vs. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Defamation Law / Internet Law / Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 / Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 75 — Republication via Hyperlinking — Cause of Action — Limitation — A hyperlink embedded within a later online publication, which points to an earlier allegedly defamatory article, constitutes 'republication' of the earlier article if the hyperlink is used not merely as a neutral reference but in a manner and context that repeats, endorses, strategically positions, or amplifies the defa India Law Library Docid # 2424014
(372) TDI INFRATECH LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent Powers of High Court — Quashing of FIR — Scope of Interference — High Court's power under S. 482 CrPC is vast but exercisable sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice — In proceedings for quashing, the Court must only ascertain if allegations in the FIR, taken as true and uncontroverted, along with investigation material, prima facie constitute an offence — Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess sufficiency of evi India Law Library Docid # 2424015
(373) NITESH SETHI Vs. SHIKHA SETHI[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 24-03-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Applicability — Jain Community — Section 2(1)(b) & Section 2(3) — The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) are expressly applicable to persons who are Jain by religion — Section 2(1)(b) of the HMA specifically extends the Act to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh by religion — Furthermore, Section 2(3) mandates that the expression "Hindu" in any portion of the Act shall be construed to include persons to whom the Act applies by virtue of Section 2, India Law Library Docid # 2424148
(374) NIRBHAY SINGH Vs. SUMAT PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 24-03-2025 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 146 — Attachment Order — Emergency — Justification based on Conduct — An order of attachment under S. 146 CrPC based on emergency is justified where the conduct of one party (applicant/vendor), subsequent to selling the property and purportedly delivering possession via sale deeds, involves creating disturbances (rukus), attempting to prevent harvesting by purchasers, escalating the situation to the point of threatening self-immolation (leading to arres India Law Library Docid # 2424149
(375) PRAVEEN KUMAR TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 60 & 63 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 451 & 457 Interim Custody (Supurdagi) of Vehicle — The mere fact that a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the Act does not operate as an absolute bar to its release on interim custody (supurdagi) under Sections 451/457 of the CrPC [S. 503 BNSS] pending conclusion of the trial. India Law Library Docid # 2424150
(376) RAHUL JANGID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 24-03-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50A — Controlled Delivery — Authorization — Section 50A permits the Director General (DG) of NCB or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf to undertake controlled delivery — Where the DG, NCB, while proceeding on official tour, issues a memorandum authorizing the Deputy Director General (DDG) to look after the work of the DG, an authorization order for controlled delivery subsequently issued by the DDG under Section 50A i India Law Library Docid # 2424213
(377) SMT. MOHANAKUMARI K.R. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Advocates/Bar Associations — Elections — Reservation for Women — Mandate based on Supreme Court Directions — Applicability to All Associations — Following the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning reservation for women in Bar Association elections (specifically reserving the post of Treasurer and ensuring 30% representation in the Governing Council/Executive Committee, as initially directed for SCBA and subsequently extended mutatis mutandis to other Bar India Law Library Docid # 2424352
(378) MRS. LATHA SARAVANAN AND OTHERS Vs. S.M. SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Letters Patent (Madras) — Clause 15 — Appealability — Order Refusing Stay of Suit — Section 10 CPC — Maintainability — An order passed by a Single Judge rejecting an application for stay of suit, even if filed under Section 151 CPC but seeking relief analogous to Section 10 CPC, qualifies as a ‘judgment’ appealable under Clause 15 of the India Law Library Docid # 2424415
(379) M/S. CUSTODIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S. METAFILMS (INDIA) LTD.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Preliminary Issues — Existence and Validity of Arbitration Agreement — Order Directing Evidence — Finality — An order passed in a Section 11 petition directing parties to lead evidence before the Master regarding the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, especially when passed after hearing parties, attains finality if not challenged before the appropriate forum (Supreme Court) — A party cannot subsequently seek to bypass or ig India Law Library Docid # 2424416
(380) M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 40A(7)(b) & 43B — Deduction for Provision towards Approved Gratuity Fund — Interplay of Non-Obstante Clauses — Specific vs. General Provision — Section 40A(7)(b) is a specific provision dealing with deductions for provisions made towards an approved gratuity fund, carved out as an exception to the general disallowance of provisions for gratuity under Section 40A(7)(a) — Section 43B, dealing with deductions allowable only on actual payment, refers generally to India Law Library Docid # 2424417