ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(561) PRASHANT @ GUDDU SHANKARRAO @ VIJAY INGLE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 18-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 3 — Testimony of Eyewitness — Reliability — Omissions and Improvements — Testimony of the victim’s mother (PW1), the sole eyewitness to the assault on a minor child, can form the basis for conviction if found cogent and reliable overall — Minor improvements (elaborating details in court) or omissions (failing to state a specific detail like touching the private part in the initial police statement, even if admitted in cross-examination) do not necessarily discredit the en
India Law Library Docid # 2424308

(562) V. RAVI PRAKASH, PRESIDENT, RTV Vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Public Interest Litigation — Bona Fides and Locus Standi — Preliminary Examination — The bona fides of a petitioner filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a crucial factor that must be examined by the Court at the threshold, irrespective of the apparent public cause being espoused — Courts must ensure that the PIL mechanism is not abused for oblique considerations or personal gain, and must verify the petitioner’s credentials and the genuineness of the public interest involved before
India Law Library Docid # 2424369

(563) SMT. R. SHARMILA Vs. B. DEVAKUMAR[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3, Rule 3A — Compromise Decree — Nature and Executability — Suit for Ejectment — A decree passed in terms of a lawful compromise agreement entered into between parties in a suit, particularly one where the defendant (tenant) undertakes to perform certain acts or adhere to conditions and agrees that failure to do so entitles the plaintiff (landlord) to enforce the reliefs claimed in the plaint (ejectment), falls under the first part of Order 23
India Law Library Docid # 2424384

(564) DR. ABHISHEK M. SUTRAVE Vs. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 — Section 35(3)(b) — Ordinance Making Power of Syndicate — Consultation with Academic Council — Section 35(3)(b) mandates that the Syndicate shall consult the Academic Council (AC) in matters relating to the conduct or standard of examination before making an Ordinance — Where the records indicate that a recommendation originating from a Committee of the Academic Council (CAC) regarding evaluation Ordinances (for both UG and PG) was placed
India Law Library Docid # 2424387

(565) RAMAKRISHNA MATH Vs. S. YOGA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 23 Rule 3A — Bar to Suit Challenging Compromise Decree — Applicability to Strangers — The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, which prohibits a separate suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which it is based was not lawful, applies only to the parties to the compromise decree — It does not bar a suit by a stranger to the compromise decree who alleges that the decree affects their independent rights or title to the property invol
India Law Library Docid # 2424390

(566) KEMIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Vs. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Patents Act, 1970 — Section 3(i) — Patentable Subject Matter — Method of Treatment of Animals — Animal Feed Supplementation — A claimed method directed towards supplementing animal feed (for monogastric animals) with a specific combination of enzymes (ferulic acid esterase produced from bacteria, supplemented with cellulase, xylanase, glucanase, and amylase) to improve the efficiency of extracting metabolizable energy from the feed, is not excluded from patentability
India Law Library Docid # 2424428

(567) RAGURAJAN Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 18-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 372 — Appeal against Acquittal — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — In an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial court’s findings are perverse or based on an impossible view of the evidence — The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly points towards the guil
India Law Library Docid # 2424429

(568) NATCHIMUTHU AND OTHER Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUPPUR DISTRICT, TIRUPPU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007) — Section 23(1) — Cancellation of Transfer/Settlement Deed — Condition for Maintenance — Implied Condition — Neglect — Section 23(1) empowers the Tribunal to declare a transfer of property (including by gift or settlement) made by a senior citizen void at their option, if the transferee, having an obligation to provide basic amenities and physical needs, fails or refuses to do so — The condition that the
India Law Library Docid # 2424430

(569) THOMAS ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Section 11 & 13 — Enquiry Procedure against Government Employee — Compliance with Service Rules — An enquiry conducted by an Internal Committee under the POSH Act against a government employee must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the employee
India Law Library Docid # 2424557

(570) GHANSHYAM DAS RUNGTA FOUNDATION THROUGH SECRETARY DR. SOURABH RUNGTA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 96(2)(xxxiii) — Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 — Rule 76-B(16) — Power to Fix Age Limit for School Buses — The State Government, in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 96(2)(xxxiii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed”), is competent to prescribe conditions for the grant of a school bus permit, including fixing a maximum age limit for vehicles used as school buses —Such a condition relates
India Law Library Docid # 2424706

(571) MANOJ KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 197 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Sanction for Prosecution — Public Servant — Act in Discharge of Official Duty — Protection under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act is available to a public servant accused of offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty — Where the allegation is that the public servant issued directions related to clearing bills of certain rice miller
India Law Library Docid # 2424707

(572) BASAVATARAKAM MEMORIAL MEDICAL TRUST Vs. NANDAMURI LAKSHMI PARVATHI[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
A. Evidence Act, 1872 — S.68 & Succession Act, 1925 — S.63 — Proof of Will — Attestation Requirement — A Will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if available, as mandated by S.68 of the Evidence Act, which specifies the mode of proof for compulsorily attestable documents like Wills (S.63 Succession Act). (Paras 3, 15, 17)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 — S.69 — Proof of Will when No Attesting Witness Found — Foundational Requirement — Section 69 provides an alternative mode of p
India Law Library Docid # 2424750

(573) NENAVATH JAGAN Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Forest Laws — Reserved Forest Land — Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities — Grant of Pattas — Land declared and notified as Reserved Forest vests with the Forest Department — Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction or competence to assign such land or grant pattas thereon, even if the land was previously leased for cultivation or allotted for rehabilitation purposes under a Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.2771)
India Law Library Docid # 2424752

(574) MOLUGURI DIVYA Vs. HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Service Law — Appointment — Erroneous Selection — Local vs. Non-Local Candidate — Where a candidate applies under the non-local category but is inadvertently selected and appointed against a post reserved for the local category, despite possessing lower merit than other eligible candidates (both open category and local category replacements), such an appointment is irregular or illegal ab initio.
India Law Library Docid # 2424767

(575) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. VEDULA SURAYANARAYANA MURTHY DIED AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to cases involving substantial questions of law — The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless such findings are demonstrated to be erroneous due to being contrary to mandatory provisions of law, contrary to law pronounced by the Apex Co
India Law Library Docid # 2424821

(576) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. VEDULA ESWARUDU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — The High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law It cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below unless such findings are vitiated by non-consideration of vital evidence, are based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence, or are contrary to mandatory provisions of law or settled legal principles.
India Law Library Docid # 2424809

(577) SHAIK MABU Vs. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Concurrent Findings — The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, should ordinarily refrain from interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, especially concerning conviction — Re-appreciation of evidence is generally impermissible unless there is a manifest illegality, perversity in the findings, non-consideration of material evidenc
India Law Library Docid # 2424805

(578) ATASI SAHA AND ANOTHER Vs. SOMNATH SARKAR[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 34 & Suit for Possession — Maintainability — Requirement of Declaration of Title when Title is Clouded — A suit filed for recovery of possession simpliciter is not maintainable in its present form when the plaintiff’s title to the suit property is clouded by the defendant’s assertion of title, particularly through actions like mutation of names based on an instrument and execution/reliance on a registered deed concerning the property — In such circumstances, the pr
India Law Library Docid # 2425218

(579) M/S. TRADE CENTRE Vs. MAGEBE BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Partnership Act, 1932 — S. 58, S. 69(2) — Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 114(e) — Maintainability of Suit by Partnership Firm — Requirement of Registration — Date of Registration vs. Date of Transaction — Proof of Registration — For a suit filed by a partnership firm to enforce a right arising from a contract to be maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, the firm must be registered on the date of institution of the suit — Registration is not required to have occurred during the p
India Law Library Docid # 2425219

(580) RAJPAL WALIA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 45 — Bail — Scheduled Offence — Applicability — Where predicate offences include Section 420 IPC (a scheduled offence listed in Part A, Paragraph 1 of the PMLA Schedule), proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA based on such predicate offences are legally sustainable, and the conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA are attracted.
India Law Library Docid # 2425243