(521) SANDIP CHINTAMAN SAMANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-09-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 50 — Information to arrested person about grounds of arrest — Compliance — Arrested person must be informed of grounds of arrest as soon as may be — No specific form or written communication mandated in all cases — Substantial compliance with information being provided is India Law Library Docid # 2434486
(522) P. THIKKAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 22-09-2025 Recruitment — Filling of Vacancies — Merit List Operation — When multiple posts are notified and filled simultaneously, and some candidates are selected for more than one post, the unoccupied vacancies should be filled by operating the merit list downwards, rather than carrying them forward to the next recruitment cycle. This applies particularly when a large number of vacancies remain unfilled due to such overlapping India Law Library Docid # 2434575
(523) SRI ABDUL KHADAR @ ABDUL QUADAR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 22-09-2025 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 45(2) — Sanction for prosecution — Validity of sanction — Challenge to validity of sanction order cannot be a weapon to stall prosecution — Grounds for challenge such as non-application of mind or insufficiency of material must be raised at the trial stage. India Law Library Docid # 2434576
(524) UMESH SAJWAN @ BABLU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 22-09-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Admissibility of information leading to discovery — Section 27 pertains to the part of information leading to the discovery of an article that can be proved, and is an exception to Section 25 (confessions to police are inadmissible) — It is not the confession itself but the part of the information distinct to the fact thereby discovered that is admissible — The information given by India Law Library Docid # 2434662
(525) SMT. HEMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 22-09-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — High Court under Article 227 does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or facts — Jurisdiction is correctional, to rectify grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law or justice — High Court cannot substitute India Law Library Docid # 2434663
(526) SUMITRA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 34, 201 — Murder and Destruction of Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, including motive, presence at the scene of crime, and identification of cremated remains, leading to acquittal India Law Library Docid # 2433007
(527) KM. DEEPIKA RANI Vs. VINAY BANSAL[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Barred by Law — Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC requires consideration of plaint averments only, not defendant's defence — Court must read entire plaint to ascertain cause of action — If plaint discloses cause of action, it cannot be rejected on the mere possibility of plaintiff's failure to succeed. India Law Library Docid # 2433016
(528) RAMIREDDY PRATHAP KUMAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 109(1), 118, 3(5), 49 — Criminal Petition for pre-arrest bail — Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail directly from High Court without first approaching the Sessions Judge — Generally, aggrieved party should first approach the Sessions Court for pre-arrest bail — High Court may entertain such petitions India Law Library Docid # 2433042
(529) A.MOHANDOSS Vs. P.VIKASH KUMAR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 12 — Punishment for contempt of court — Civil contempt — Breach of undertaking given to court amounts to civil contempt — Appellant breached undertaking to vacate premises, held guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to imprisonment and fine — Apology and withdrawal of subsequent litigations considered for modifying punishment. India Law Library Docid # 2433047
(530) ARUL KUMAR @ ARUNKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 — Murder and related charges — Appeals against conviction and sentence — Court considered multiple discrepancies in prosecution evidence, including contradictions in eye-witness testimonies regarding the place of occurrence and the nature of injuries versus weapons used, failure to examine independent witnesses, unexplained delay in FIR transmission, and doubts regarding the inclusion of certain accused (A11-A14) India Law Library Docid # 2433048
(531) M/S. A.T.M. CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. Vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 55 — Continuing breach — Plaintiff claims damages for wrongful occupation after lease expiry — Leased property not vacated by lessee — Breach of contractual and statutory obligation to hand over possession on lease determination considered a continuing breach — Limitation period runs from when the breach ceases — Suit filed within specified period from cessation of breach is within time. India Law Library Docid # 2433049
(532) MURLIDHAR VERMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. SMT. BUNDA BAI VERMA AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16 — Coparcenary Property — Daughter's Rights — Amendment Act of 2005 confers coparcener status on daughters by birth, with same rights and liabilities as sons — These rights are effective from 9.9.2005, subject to savings for dispositions before 20.12.2004. The father coparcener need not be living on 9.9.2005 for the daughter to claim rights. India Law Library Docid # 2433200
(533) S.SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2] — Essential ingredients to prove offences — Demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary — Proof of demand is sine qua non — Mere recovery of money or acceptance without proof of demand is insufficient — Acquittal justified when essential ingredients not proved. India Law Library Docid # 2433112
(534) RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — Complaint Case — Registration of — Court directed registration of a complaint case after a protest petition was filed against the final report submitted by the police, which had exonerated the accused police personnel. The Court found that serious accusations were made by the informant and ordered the complaint case to be registered and the records of the police case to be tagged with it. India Law Library Docid # 2433114
(535) JINNAT ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, Section 448; POCSO Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Rape, House-trespass, Sexual intercourse with a person in shelter, Punishment — Conviction for offences under POCSO Act and IPC — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Plea of juvenility raised — Ossification test conducted to ascertain appellant's age — Conflicting reports from Medical Board — Supreme Court precedents on age determination and ossification tests — Margin of error in age ascertainment from India Law Library Docid # 2433115
(536) SURESHKUMAR BHAVANISHANKAR RAVAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MANISH DHEBARBHAI PATEL[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference not warranted merely because a second view is possible — Court should not interfere with every order passed by a lower court — Interference is justified only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice. India Law Library Docid # 2433136
(537) PRAMOD JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. CHARUMITRA DANGIWALA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 19-09-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Maintainability of petition — Petition under Article 227 lies against order of tribunal when no further appeal or revision is available — Order of State Commission in execution proceedings has no further appeal or revision — Therefore, High Court can exercise its supervisory India Law Library Docid # 2433297
(538) HARI PARKASH MANGLA Vs. M/S NAWAL AND SHARMA MEDICAL CARE PVT. LTD.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in Appellate Court — Application for additional evidence should be heard along with the appeal — Once the application for additional evidence is allowed, the appeal cannot be decided without the additional evidence being led and rebutted. The Appellate Court must defer the decision of the appeal until this process is complete. India Law Library Docid # 2433851
(539) SWARNJEET SINGH Vs. AKASH KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Filing of written statement — Commercial vs. Non-commercial disputes — The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 amended CPC for commercial disputes, making timelines for written statements mandatory — For non-commercial disputes, the unamended Order 8 Rule 1 CPC applies, which is directory, allowing courts discretion to condone delay. (Paras India Law Library Docid # 2433852
(540) SMT. BISMILLAH AND OTHERS Vs. BADLU AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 3 — Description of immovable property — Plaint must describe immovable property sufficiently to identify it, by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey — Failure to prove identity of suit property by description and boundaries will lead to dismissal of suit for injunction — Plaintiff failed to establish identity due to inconsistent site plans and lack of consensus on boundaries. India Law Library Docid # 2433859