(61) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT BUILDING MATERIALS Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Post-Retirement Recovery — Natural Justice — Show Cause Notice — Recovery of alleged excess payments (arising from implementation of 7th CPC) sought from employees after their superannuation, based on undertakings given before superannuation to refund any excess, is impermissible without adhering to principles of natural justice — Issuance of a recovery notice merely demanding refund without providing reasons or basis for the alleged excess, and subsequ India Law Library Docid # 2424991
(62) UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. DR KIRAN GUPTA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Promotion — University Teachers — Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-2010 — Clause 6.3.12 — Effective Date of Promotion — Interpretation of Clause 6.3.12(a) vis-à-vis Clause 6.3.12(c) — Clause 6.3.12(a) of CAS-2010, providing for promotion from the date of minimum eligibility upon successful assessment, applies only when the candidate succeeds in the first assessment after applying upon becoming eligible — Clause 6.3.12(c) applies when a candidate does not succeed in the first assessm India Law Library Docid # 2424992
(63) GAURAV GAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] — Quashing of FIR — Offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — Settlement in Matrimonial Dispute — Exercise of inherent power to quash FIR, along with charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the petitioners (husband and his family members) and the respondent No.2 (wife) — Settlement achieved through mediation, docume India Law Library Docid # 2424993
(64) KIRAN Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 & Order 10 — Judgment on Admissions — Statement Recorded under Order X — A preliminary decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be validly passed based on clear and unequivocal admissions made by the defendant in a statement recorded by the trial court under Order 10 CPC, even if such admissions contradict averments made in the written statement — The scope of “otherwise, whether orally or in writing” under Order 12 Rule 6 encompasse India Law Library Docid # 2424994
(65) MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Vs. COSMO PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Liberal and Justice-Oriented Approach — The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requires a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented interpretation rather than a rigid or purely technical one — The primary objective is to advance substantial justice — While the length of delay is a factor, the explanation offered is decisive — Courts should lean towards condoning delay, especially w India Law Library Docid # 2425074
(66) PURSHOTAM KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. HANUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Onus and Standard — The onus lies squarely on the propounder to prove the due execution and attestation of a Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, by examining at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (if available) — Given the solemnity of a Will, which speaks from death, proof must satisfy the judicial conscience — The standard is not mathematical certai India Law Library Docid # 2425075
(67) DHANI RAM Vs. NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 — Section 15 — Partial Pre-emption — Indivisible Sale Transaction — Co-sharer in one Khewat — The right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, requiring the pre-emptor to take over the entire bargain covered by the sale deed sought to be pre-empted — Where a sale deed conveys land falling in multiple khewats under a single, indivisible transaction, a plaintiff who is a co-sharer in only one of those khewats cannot maintain a suit for pre-empting only the portion India Law Library Docid # 2425076
(68) SUNIL KUMAR @ SHINA Vs. HANUMAN SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment — Just Compensation — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — Amputation Injuries — The principle of ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act requires an award that is fair and equitable, neither meagre nor excessive (‘no less and no more’) — In cases of permanent disability due to amputation, particularly multiple amputations, the assessment of ‘functional disability’ concerning loss of earning capacity is paramount and must b India Law Library Docid # 2425077
(69) KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — ‘Panchsheel’ Principles — In cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be sustained only if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is wholly inconsistent with their innocence — These circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except the one pointing towards the accused’s gui India Law Library Docid # 2425078
(70) RAVINDER SINGH Vs. KULWINDERJIT KAUR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Mental Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown and Long Separation — Where parties to a marriage have been living separately for an exceptionally prolonged period without any resumption of cohabitation or matrimonial ties, and the relationship is marked by bitterness, protracted litigation, and failed reconciliation attempts (including mediation), such circumstances collectively lead to an inference of profound mental cruelty inflicted by the pa India Law Library Docid # 2425079
(71) HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS Vs. PARMILA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Reservation — Migration — Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) Candidates — Applicability at Preliminary/Screening Stage — The principle established by the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav vs State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542 and subsequent judgments (Sadhana Singh Dangi, Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah) mandates that the ‘Open Category’ is not a separate quota but is available to all candidates based purely on merit, irrespective of their social category (reserved or unreserved) India Law Library Docid # 2425080
(72) AWADHESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 — Rule 23-A (inserted w.e.f. 23.03.2016) — Applications for Quarry Lease filed before Amendment — Ineligibility — As per Rule 23-A(2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, all applications for the grant of a quarry lease received prior to the commencement of the Amendment Rules (i.e., before 23.03.2016) became ineligible upon the coming into force of the amendment. An application filed on 06.05.2015, therefore, became ineligible by operation of law, and its rejection ba India Law Library Docid # 2424713
(73) KAVILAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Time Gap — In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance of ‘last seen together’ is a relevant factor, but conviction cannot be based solely on it, especially when there is a significant time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased was found dead — A substantial gap weakens the probative value of the last seen evidence, as it does not exclude the possibilit India Law Library Docid # 2424714
(74) ARJUN DEVANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 — Section 34(2) — Illegal Possession of Liquor — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Independent Witnesses Turning Hostile — In a prosecution for illegal possession of liquor under the Excise Act, where independent seizure witnesses (PW-1, PW-2) do not support the prosecution case regarding the time, place, and manner of seizure from the accused, and there are material contradictions between their testimonies and that of the investigating police officer (PW-7), the pros India Law Library Docid # 2424715
(75) SANTOSH KUMAR CHOUHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. NATWAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Dependency — Claim by Married Siblings — Adult siblings (brother and sister) of a deceased person, who are married and maintain their own separate families, are generally not considered dependents for the purpose of awarding compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, unless specific evidence is adduced to prove their financial dependency on the deceased’s income — Mere assertion of dependency is insufficient, especial India Law Library Docid # 2424716
(76) KAMANURI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. STATE OF AP[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Conviction — The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., particularly against concurrent findings of conviction upheld by the appellate court, is circumscribed — The High Court will not act as a second appellate court to re-appreciate evidence — Interference is warranted only in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality, findings based on no evidence or overlooking India Law Library Docid # 2424828
(77) NUTULAPATI RAVIKANTH Vs. NUTULAPATI NARAYANA RAO (DIED) THR. LRS.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Bringing Legal Representatives on Record — Sufficient Cause — Consideration of sufficiency of cause for delay (herein 635 days) in applying under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC, based on asserted lack of awareness of a respondent’s death, particularly in contexts involving strained familial relations and alleged non-intimation by opposing counsel India Law Library Docid # 2424895
(78) M. DANIAL PRATAP AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI R. VENKAT RAO[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Requirement for admission of a second appeal hinges entirely on the existence of a substantial question of law; mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence, or challenge to concurrent findings of fact by lower courts does not suffice — The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate such a question. India Law Library Docid # 2424896
(79) SHRI LOVEE NARULA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Bail — Interim Bail — Extension — Humanitarian Grounds vs. Bail Condition Violation — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, S.45 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Where interim bail was granted on medical grounds related to the petitioner’s father who subsequently passed away, the Court may extend the interim bail for a limited period on humanitarian grounds, considering the petitioner’s need to perform post-cremation rituals and support his grieving mother — Such ex India Law Library Docid # 2424938
(80) ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Judicial Review — Interim Orders of Specialized Tribunals (TDSAT) — Scope of Interference — The High Court’s power of judicial review under Article 226 against orders, particularly interim orders, of specialized tribunals like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) is supervisory and circumscribed — Interference is generally not warranted unless there is a serious dereliction of duty, flagrant violation of fundamental principles India Law Library Docid # 2424939