(421) RANVIR SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Service Law — Compulsory Retirement — Challenge to Guidelines/G.O. dated 20.02.2002 — Financial Handbook, Vol. II-IV, Rule 56 — Rule 56 empowers the appointing authority to compulsorily retire a government servant at or above 50 years of age — G.O. dated 20.02.2002 prescribes the constitution of a Screening Committee, including the appointing authority as Chairperson, to aid the decision-making process — The G.O. merely provides a procedural mechanism to ensure India Law Library Docid # 2436519
(422) BALMER LAWRIE VAN LEER LTD Vs. SUNIL KUMAR PRAJAPATI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Industrial Dispute — Quashing of Reference Order — Scope of Writ Jurisdiction — A reference order made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being an administrative act, should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is patently absurd or without any factual foundation — Disputed questions of fact and India Law Library Docid # 2436520
(423) MAHESH SAH AND ANOTHER Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Mutation Proceedings — Scope of Interference — Writ Petition challenging orders of Tehsildar and Commissioner in mutation proceedings dismissed as not maintainable under Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction is only attracted in cases of total absence of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice — In present case, India Law Library Docid # 2436521
(424) ANAND SINGH Vs. CHAMPA DEVI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) — Divorce — Mental Cruelty post-Compromise — Parties entered into a compromise in 2017 after a previous divorce petition was filed, agreeing to separate residence and maintenance — Respondent's subsequent conduct, including repeatedly visiting the husband's workplace (restaurant) and using abusive/insulting language in India Law Library Docid # 2436522
(425) NARENDRA RAMPRAKASH PODAR AND OTHERS Vs. PRAGNESH NARAYAN PODAR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) — Section 22 — Change Report — Enquiry requirement — Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) — Change Report regarding deletion of one Trustee (due to medical incapacity) and appointment of a new Trustee, and change of Trust address — ACC allowed the Change Report without recording reasons and without a detailed inquiry as mandated by Section 22 India Law Library Docid # 2436990
(426) SHRI. RAMUGHRAHA RAMCHARITA TIWARI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HIERS) Vs. ALAKNANDA GOPALKRISHNA BADALE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 115 — Revision Application — Scope of Judicial Review — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 is limited; it is not expected to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its findings for those of the Appellate Court unless the findings are perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2436991
(427) TANVI AND ANOTHER Vs. ABHINEET[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — Application for registration of FIR — Discretion of Magistrate — When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if facts disclose a cognizable offence; the Magistrate has discretion — If the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is justified in forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) as an alternative to taking cognizance, especially when such a India Law Library Docid # 2436923
(428) NISHANT Vs. ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66F — Punishment for cyber terrorism — Mens Rea — Essential ingredient for conviction under Section 66F(1)(A) and (1)(B) is "intent to threaten the unity" or "knowingly or intentionally" obtaining access to restricted information — Prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea, especially since the alleged copying of data occurred years before the communication with foreign India Law Library Docid # 2437108
(429) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MARUTI BHIKAJI BORKAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference by Appellate Court — Appellate Court must review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence, but must not interfere if two reasonable conclusions are possible — Interference is justified only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or where only the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible beyond a India Law Library Docid # 2437172
(430) ROSHAN JAYWANT PAGARE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Law — Murder and Attempted Murder (IPC Sections 302, 324, 143, 147, 148, 307) — Appreciation of Evidence — Conviction solely based on testimony of injured eye-witnesses — Reliability of injured eye-witnesses' testimony (PW4 and PW5) — The evidence of interested eye-witnesses, particularly where background suggests serious previous enmity and the witnesses' conduct appears unnatural (failing to promptly name assailants to police/doctor despite knowing them, coupled with delay in FIR regi India Law Library Docid # 2437173
(431) SUMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. MEENAKSHI AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Enquiry — Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered when deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — The court cannot examine evidence or the merits of the controversy, nor consider submissions made in the written statement or other materials provided by the defendant. India Law Library Docid # 2436921
(432) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Suit was decreed ex-parte against the State (Petitioners) on 21.01.2017 — Petitioners opted to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was ultimately dismissed on 13.09.2019 by the High Court in revision, upholding the ex-parte judgment — Petitioners subsequently filed an appeal against the original judgment on 14.10.2021, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay — Limitation for appeal started either from India Law Library Docid # 2436922
(433) TENNETI MEENAKSHI RAJASEKHAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — Sections 452(1) and 461(1) — Unauthorized Construction — Complaint by neighbor — Deviations from Sanctioned Plan — Compounding and Regularization — Where construction deviations are claimed to be minor (less than 10% of constructed area) and within permissible limits for compounding under GOMs.No.119, the authorities must first determine the extent of deviation before ordering demolition — Petitioners (builders) India Law Library Docid # 2436118
(434) ABDUL AZIZ PEER Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 01-12-2025 Writ Petition — Quashing of Administrative Order — Challenge to Order of Deputy Commissioner directing seizure of all illegal Rice Husking Machines, Bandsaw and Tractor Based Machines — Petitioner, operating a Movable Tractor Mounted Rice Husking Machine, claimed order was without jurisdiction and interfered with his right to trade — Petitioner relied on NOCs/permissions from State Pollution Control Board and India Law Library Docid # 2436236
(435) VICTIM X Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 — Rule 12(4) and Annexure-I — Compensation/Relief Amount to Victim — Entitlement — Victim turning hostile resulting in acquittal of accused — Where the victim (petitioner), alleging offences including gang rape (Section 376-D India Law Library Docid # 2436291
(436) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. MANOHAR SINGH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 225, 226 — Judicial Review — General Security Force Court (GSFC) Proceedings — Scope and Exercise of Power — The scope of judicial review over proceedings of military courts and GSFCs is narrow and supervisory; the High Court does not sit in appeal, re-appreciate evidence, or substitute factual conclusions — Interference is justified only where proceedings suffer from jurisdictional infirmity, perversity, complete absence of evidence, India Law Library Docid # 2437547
(437) PRIYA SUMAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Constitutional Law — Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) — Protection to Live-in Couples — Two adults (female aged 18, male aged 19) seeking protection from family members to live together in a live-in relationship until the male attains the marriageable age (21 years) — The core issue is the protection of life and liberty, not the validity of the relationship — Constitutional Fundamental Right India Law Library Docid # 2437770
(438) RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 — Rules of 1996 — Compassionate Appointment — Termination of Service — Suppression of Material Facts — Appointment obtained through fraud — Petitioner failing to disclose that his mother (working in UCO Bank) and step-brother (in Government employment) were already employed at the time of India Law Library Docid # 2437771
(439) LABHUBEN HARISHBHAI PATADIA HEIR OF DECD. H.R.PATATIA AND OTHERS Vs. WESTERN GUJARAT ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — First Appeal — Suit for compensation for death due to electrocution — Alleged negligence of electricity company — Burden of proof on plaintiff — Essential requirements for establishing negligence: Plaintiff must prove death resulted from electrocution caused by defendant's negligence — Failure to prove cause of death (electrocution) through cogent evidence India Law Library Docid # 2437847
(440) RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Revision — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 — The revisional court is not an appellate court; its scope is narrow — Jurisdiction is exercised to set right a patent defect, error of jurisdiction, or law, or perversity — It should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a glaring feature amounting to a gross India Law Library Docid # 2437991