ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(781) IN REFERENCE AND ANOTHER Vs. JITENDRA PURVIYA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Criminal Law — Murder (Four Counts) — Death Penalty Commuted to Life Imprisonment (Actual Incarceration of 20 Years) — In a case of quadruple murder, where the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC (4 counts) and sentenced to death, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment for actual incarceration of 20 years, with sentences to run concurrently — The commutation was based on mitigating circumstances including the appellant’s intoxicated state at the time of the incident, absen
India Law Library Docid # 2425526

(782) CHANDRAPAL SINHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 109 — Attempt to Murder — Ingredients — Hurt caused to any person by the act is sufficient, not necessarily grievous hurt — Intention coupled with an overt act is relevant — Nature of injury is not solely determinative of intention or knowledge.
India Law Library Docid # 2425674

(783) RAMESH CHIMANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 — Tenancy Rights — Challenge to Revenue Entry & Mamlatdar’s Order — Laches, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Approbate and Reprobate — Revenue entry mutating petitioners’ names as cultivators unchallenged for years — Mamlatdar’s order declaring tenancy and fixing purchase price remained unchallenged by landowners for decades — Subsequent inconsistent stands taken by landowners, including an affidavit confirming tenancy rights, de
India Law Library Docid # 2426003

(784) JAYESH PREMJI SOLANKI AND OTHERS Vs. KISHOR PREMJI SOLANKI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Arbitrator’s jurisdiction — Challenge to — Rejection of — Judicial review — Writ jurisdiction (Article 226/227) — Scope of interference with order under Section 16 is extremely narrow — Interference warranted only in exceptional rarity where party is remediless or there is clear bad faith — Present case, involving challenge to arbitrator’s rejection of jurisdictional objection raised post-filing of pleadings and after significant participatio
India Law Library Docid # 2426098

(785) DR. JITENDRA DAS MAGANTI Vs. MGM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Intellectual Property — Trademarks — Infringement and Passing Off — Interim Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Where a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) explicitly allows the successful resolution applicant (defendant) to operate a hospital using a composite mark (“MGM Seven Hills”) that includes the plaintiff’s registered trademark (“Seven Hills”), and this plan has been
India Law Library Docid # 2427932

(786) MOHAMMAD SARIF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397/401 — Suspension of Sentence — Conviction upheld by appellate court — Applicant claimed non-receipt of goods and justification for stopping payment — High Court considered that the case involved revisiting factual and
India Law Library Docid # 2428295

(787) M.W.R.JAYAKAR A1 Vs. STATE OF A.P., REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ACB[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) — Proof of Demand — Sine Qua Non — Proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Mere acceptance or recovery of money, in the absence of proof of demand beyond reasonable doubt, is insufficient to sustain a conviction — The presumption under Section 20 of the Act can only be drawn upon proof of acceptance pursuant to a demand
India Law Library Docid # 2424839

(788) MEHTA PRASHANTBHAI MUKUNDRAY PARTNER M/S COAL CORPORATION Vs. M/S MAGNIFICO MINERALS PVT LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S. 141 — Vicarious Liability — Requirement to Implead Company/Firm as Primary Accused: Discussion reaffirming the principle established in Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda (2022 SCC OnLine SC 579) and other precedents that vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act can only be fastened onto directors/partners if the company or firm, being the primary offender, is also arrayed as an accused in the complaint.
India Law Library Docid # 2424869

(789) ABBVIE BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC AND ANOTHER Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENT DESIGNS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Patents Act, 1970 — Section 59(1) — Permissibility of Amendments — Scope of Claims — Amendments to a patent application or specification under Section 59(1) are permissible only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation for incorporating an actual fact — Crucially, such amendments must not result in the amended specification claiming or describing matter not disclosed in substance in the original specification, and the amended claims must fall wholly within the scope of the claims as orig
India Law Library Docid # 2424929

(790) BHAVNA LATHER AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482] — Anticipatory Bail — Maintainability after Issuance of NBW / Proclamation (S. 82 CrPC) — The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power — Once non-bailable warrants (NBWs) have been issued against an accused, or more significantly, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated due to non-appearance and evasion of process, the accused is generally not entitled
India Law Library Docid # 2424930

(791) MRS. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. LOTUS GREENS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 122 — Application for Restoration (Order IX Rule 9 CPC) — Limitation Period — An application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside a dismissal for default and restoring the suit must be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal, as prescribed by Article 122 of the Limitation Act — An application filed beyond this period, without an accompanying application for condonation of delay supported by sufficient cause, is liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
India Law Library Docid # 2424931

(792) JASKARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) — Sections related to Bail Cancellation and Issuance of Warrants — Section 482 (Now S. 528 BNSS) — Non-Appearance of Accused — Cancellation of Bail & Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants — Procedural Fairness — Issuance of non-bailable warrants and cancellation of bail upon a single instance of non-appearance by an accused, who was previously appearing regularly, must not be done mechanically — Where
India Law Library Docid # 2425117

(793) ARDDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. HERAEUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIAN PVT. LTD.[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 202, 204 & 482 — Issuance of Process — Application of Mind — Inquiry under Section 202 — Quashing of Proceedings — Where a Magistrate, before issuing process under Section 204 CrPC (especially against accused residing outside jurisdiction), directs an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and subsequently issues process after considering the inquiry report, it indicates application of judicial mind — Such an order issuing process does not require detailed
India Law Library Docid # 2425164

(794) ABHIMANYU PRASAD OJHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 133 — Public Nuisance — Examination of the validity of a conditional order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing removal of a wall allegedly constructed on public land (Gata No. 225), and a subsequent order directing compliance passed during the pendency of a criminal revision against the initial order.
India Law Library Docid # 2425311

(795) SHAILENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Compassionate Appointment — Teachers — Constitutional Validity — Examination of the constitutional validity of Government Orders (GOs) dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013, specifically in so far as they permit appointments to the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds, tested against the principles of Articles 14, 16, and the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
India Law Library Docid # 2425312

(796) SMT. KEHKASHAN Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
UP Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 1994 — Marking Ballot Paper (Rule 86(2)(b)) — The Rule mandates making a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose, on or near the chosen symbol, to indicate the vote
India Law Library Docid # 2425326

(797) MAHANT BHEEM BHARTI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT, HANUMANGARH JUNCTION, COMMISSIONER, DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT, UDAIPUR AND JAGDAMBA BHARTI CHELA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 14(3) & (4), Section 151 — Production of Documents at Later Stage: Leave to produce documents after filing the plaint can be granted under O.VII R.14(4) read with S.151 CPC, considering factors like stage of proceedings, reasons for delay, relevance, prejudice, and prima facie genuineness — The court’s focus at this stage is on the sufficiency of reasons for non-production earlier, not final admissibility or reliability.
India Law Library Docid # 2425412

(798) SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Service Law — Transfer — Authority — BDO/VDO: Block Development Officers (BDOs)/Village Development Officers (VDOs) are generally not independently authorized to transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti; such power typically rests with higher authorities or is exercised under specific instructions/delegation — A transfer order issued solely by a BDO without competent authority is liable to be quashed.
India Law Library Docid # 2425413

(799) SWAN MARBLES AND GRANITE (A UNIT OF SWAN INDUSTRIES LTD.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11 / Central Excise Rules, 1944 — Rule 230(2) — Transfer of Liability: During the specific period from 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004, there was no statutory provision (like Rule 230(2) of the 1944 Rules or the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, as they stood then or were absent) that mandated the transfer of outstanding excise dues of a predecessor unit to a subsequent purchaser of its assets/property, particularly in an auction sale conducted by a third party (RIICO
India Law Library Docid # 2425414

(800) AMAN BAID AND ANOTHER Vs. MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Suit relating to Converted Residential Land — An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction because the land mentioned in the plaint was agricultural land is liable to be dismissed, where it is shown that the land had already been converted into residential land by the
India Law Library Docid # 2425469