ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(521) THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND OTHERS Vs. SAU. SAROJ AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 — Scope of Review — Error Apparent — Patent Illegality — The power of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed It is permissible only where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, necessitating correction due to substantial and compelling circumstances — Review cannot serve as an appeal in disguise for rehearing arguments already addressed, nor can it correct an erroneous decisi
India Law Library Docid # 2424315

(522) M/S ENMAS GB POWER SYSTEMS Vs. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) — Section 18(2), 18(3) — Procedure upon Failure of Conciliation — Mandatory Transition to Arbitration — Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act mandates a specific procedure when conciliation proceedings initiated under Section 18(2) are unsuccessful and terminate without a settlement — The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council must then formally terminate the conciliation and either take up the dispute for arbitration itsel
India Law Library Docid # 2424346

(523) RAMEHKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. .THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Land Law — Government Grants — Assignment of Land — Cancellation for Breach of Conditions — Limitation — Reasonable Time — The power to cancel an assignment of government land for alleged breach of conditions, such as non-cultivation within the initial period or assignees providing false particulars, must be exercised within a reasonable time — Initiating cancellation proceedings after a significant delay (here, 21 years after the assignment) based on an assessment made
India Law Library Docid # 2424426

(524) SREEKUMARAN NAIR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Land Law — Title Dispute — Binding Nature of Civil Court Decrees on Revenue Authorities — Res Judicata — Tamil Nadu [Transferred Territory] Ryotwari Settlement Act, 1964 (Act 30 of 1964) — Scope of Settlement Proceedings — A decree passed by a competent Civil Court declaring title to land against the State (including a predecessor State like Travancore prior to States’ reorganisation) is binding on the revenue and settlement authorities of the successor State (Tamil Nadu)
India Law Library Docid # 2424427

(525) M. KASTHURI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act 10/1997) — Section 7(2), 7(3) — Compensation by Agreement — Validity — Timing of Agreement — Free Consent — An agreement purportedly entered into under Section 7(2) of the Act regarding the amount of compensation is invalid if it is executed after the award determining compensation has already been passed — For a valid agreement under Section 7(2), it must precede the award — Furthermore, consent obtained from landowners under
India Law Library Docid # 2424433

(526) TRILOKCHANDRA SIADARA Vs. SMT. VIDYAWATI KASHYAP AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) (as it stood prior to 2018 amendment) — Readiness and Willingness — Proof of Financial Capacity — In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of execution until the decree — Readiness includes demonstrating financial capacity — Failure to adduce evidence showing availability of sufficient funds to
India Law Library Docid # 2424704

(527) DHARAMVEER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Disagreement with Inquiry Officer’s Findings — Opportunity of Hearing — When a disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer (who has exonerated the delinquent employee), it must record its tentative reasons for disagreement and provide the delinquent employee with an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed disagreement before recording final findings and imposing punishment — Failure to provide such an opportunit
India Law Library Docid # 2424705

(528) SRI SANTOSH SATNAMI @ HRIDAY SANTAL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Section 4(2) — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 3, 63, 65 — Proof of Victim’s Age — Primary vs. Secondary Evidence — To sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence — Where the prosecution relies on documentary evidence (like a school certificate) to prove age but fails to produce the primary evidence (original school admissio
India Law Library Docid # 2424740

(529) ROHITH CANVASSING, REP.BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR S. VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SRI VENKATESHWARA TRADERS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T. RAJENDER REDDY[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 37 Rule 3(5) — Summary Suit — Leave to Defend — Principles for Grant — Conditional vs. Unconditional Leave — Principles governing grant of leave to defend in summary suits under Order 37, Rule 3(5) CPC, as reiterated in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels & Power Corpn., (2022) 3 SCC 294. Grant of leave (conditional or unconditional) is the ordinary rule; denial is the exception — Unconditional leave is granted if defendant shows a substantial defence (like
India Law Library Docid # 2424759

(530) KALVAKUNTLA TARAKA RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 173(2) (CrPC S.155(2)) — Non-Cognizable Offences — Permission to Investigate — Where the initial complaint discloses only non-cognizable offences, police officers cannot investigate without an order from a Magistrate.
India Law Library Docid # 2424766

(531) ANUMULA REVANTH REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Proceedings — Abuse of Process — The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases — Proceedings are liable to be quashed if the allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or if continuation amounts to an abuse of the process of law, such as when initiated with mala fide intent or for wreaking vengeance
India Law Library Docid # 2424780

(532) IN THE GOODS OF : DILIP KUMAR ADDY (DECEASED)[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Succession Act, 1925 — Probate Proceedings — Caveat — Affidavit in Support — Time Limit — Extension of Time — Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, Chapter 36, Rules 25 & 27 — Rule 25 requires an affidavit in support of caveat to be filed within 8 days of the caveat being lodged — Failure to file the affidavit within the stipulated time may lead to the discharge of the caveat, rendering the proceedings non-contentious — However, under Rule 27, the Court retains discretion to allow a caveator
India Law Library Docid # 2425156

(533) JOE KING, HEAD, AUDI INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 120B, 415, 418, 420 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of Proceedings — Vicarious Liability of Company Directors/Officials — Necessity of Impleading Company — Criminal proceedings initiated against directors or officials of a company for offences like cheating (Sections 418, 420 IPC) allegedly committed in the course of the company’s business are not maintainable if the company itself, the principal entity, is not arrayed as an accused — In t
India Law Library Docid # 2425217

(534) SANJAY JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Service Law — Judicial Review — Disciplinary Proceedings — Scope of High Court/Tribunal’s Power — The power of judicial review exercised by a High Court or a Service Tribunal (constituted under Acts like the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 or the Uttarakhand Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976) over disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders is limited — It is not an appeal on merits — The Court/Tribunal is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, i.e., whether the inq
India Law Library Docid # 2425235

(535) BASHARAT HUSSAIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 18-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 341, 323, 504 , 147 and 188 — Non-consideration of bail orders granted to a detenu in the FIRs that form the basis of a preventive detention order demonstrates non-application of mind by the detaining authority and renders the detention order unsustainable in law — The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act — The court found that the detaining authority failed to consider the fact t
India Law Library Docid # 2423817

(536) BHUPINDER SINGH MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Service Law — Contractual employees — Contractual employees engaged by government-funded societies performing governmental functions for an extended period are entitled to consideration for regularization on par with other state government contractual employees, and denial of such can be discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Writ petition by contractual computer operators engaged through a government society (CAMPA) for over two decades performing governmental fu
India Law Library Docid # 2423804

(537) GAURAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 20, and 29 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, particularly not to be granted in cases involving serious economic offences like those under the NDPS Act, especially when there is incriminating material and the need for custodial interrogation — Petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act for recovery of a commercial quantity of opium and char
India Law Library Docid # 2423805

(538) RAM KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Plaintiff challenging Will alleging forgery and pleading lack of knowledge until recent event — Defendants asserting earlier knowledge and limitation bar — Held, when plaintiff specifically pleads lack of knowledge of the allegedly forged Will and subsequent transfer until a specific recent event triggering the cause of action, the determination of the actual date
India Law Library Docid # 2423945

(539) MAHENDER AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S ELITE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Correction of Board Resolution details — After commencement of trial — Plaintiff inadvertently pleaded and annexed wrong Board Resolution (authorizing suit for different property) — Sought amendment to substitute correct Resolution and date — Held, such an amendment seeking correction of an error/oversight regarding the specific authorization document (Board Resolution) is a curable defect and formal in nature — It does not
India Law Library Docid # 2423946

(540) BALWINDER SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Contract Act, 1872 — Section 2(d), 25 — Agreement to Sell (Farokhatnama) — Consideration — Cheque Dishonour — Effect — Suit for declaration that unregistered agreement is void — Consideration cheque dishonoured — Defendant’s plea of subsequent cash payment disbelieved by First Appellate Court based on evidence appreciation — Held, upon dishonour of consideration cheque and failure to prove alternative payment, the agreement fails for want of consideration — Unregistered agreement does not confer
India Law Library Docid # 2423947