(841) MRS. GAGANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 — Section 49 — Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 — Rule 3(1) — No-Confidence Motion — Delivery to Assistant Commissioner — Procedural Compliance — Effect of PDO’s Seal/Signature — The core requirement under Section 49 of the Act and Rule 3(1) of the 1994 Rules for moving a Motion of No-Confidence against a Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha is that India Law Library Docid # 2424345
(842) ASHOK INVESTORS TRUST LTD. Vs. CHEERFUL TRADE AND REALTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Practice and Procedure — Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment/Order — Prejudice — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Judicial discipline necessitates the prompt delivery of judgments and orders after the conclusion of arguments — An inordinate delay (in this case, over a year) in pronouncing an order on an interlocutory application, particularly in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (which mandates judgment pronouncement within 90 days under amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC), can India Law Library Docid # 2424363
(843) S. MALA Vs. DISTRICT ARBITRATOR AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGAPATINAM.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 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 — Purposive Interpretation — The condition mentioned in Section 23(1) of the Act, requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen transferor, need not be expressly stipulated in the transfer deed (like a Gift or Settlement Deed) — An implied condition to maintain th India Law Library Docid # 2424473
(844) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR Vs. MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PVT. LTD.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Setting Aside Award — Patent Illegality — Absence of Cause of Action — Premature Claim — An arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 34(2A) on the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which goes to the root of the matter — Where the payment under a contract agreement is contingent upon final approval of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) by a specific authority and the claim for paym India Law Library Docid # 2424690
(845) HIRENDRA KASHYAP Vs. LAXMINARAYAN SONI AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53A — Registration Act, 1908 — Sections 17(1A) & 49, Proviso — Unregistered Agreement to Sell with Possession — Admissibility — An unregistered agreement to sell immovable property, even if accompanied by delivery of possession, cannot be received as evidence of the transaction affecting such property due to the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, read with Section 17(1A) — The proviso to Section 49, which allows an unregistered agreement India Law Library Docid # 2424691
(846) GALI JANARDHAN REDDY Vs. THE STATE, CBI HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS SPL P.P[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 451, 457 — Order for Custody of Property Pending Trial — Nature of Order — Interlocutory Order — An order passed under S. 451 or S. 457 CrPC dealing with the interim custody of property seized during investigation/trial is an ‘interlocutory order’ — It does not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties to the property but merely arranges for its custody pending trial conclusion. India Law Library Docid # 2424749
(847) PSYCHOTROPIC INDIA LIMITED Vs. MERIDIAN MEDICARE LTD. AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Sections 47, 57 & 125 — Rectification/Cancellation of Trademark — Prior User Rights — A party establishing prior adoption and continuous use of a trademark (or a mark containing the essential/dominant feature of the impugned mark) in relation to specific goods (pharmaceuticals) acquires superior rights over a subsequent registrant of an identical or deceptively similar mark for the same or similar goods. India Law Library Docid # 2425005
(848) KARUR VYSYA BANK Vs. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36(2) & (3) (Second Proviso) — Stay of Arbitral Award — Unconditional Stay — Grounds of Fraud or Corruption — Application for unconditional stay of an arbitral award under S. 36(2) — Petitioner alleged fraud, corruption, bias, and procedural unfairness in the making of the award by the Arbitrator, including disregard of evidence, denial of opportunity, incorrect findings on contract interpretation (Assignment Agreement, Designated Account Agreemen India Law Library Docid # 2425152
(849) JATIA ESTATES LIMITED Vs. NIRWAN FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Section 17(1)(d) — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 107 — Lease of Immovable Property — Compulsory Registration — Leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, require compulsory registration — Where unregistered tenancy agreements, though stating induction as a ‘monthly tenant’, contained clauses providing for consequences of non-payment of rent for twelve months and periodic increase of rent/serv India Law Library Docid # 2425153
(850) SANJAY MAJHI GOPE AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — S. 304 Part II / S. 34 — Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder — Knowledge and Common Intention — Sudden Fight — Conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is justified when evidence establishes that although the incident occurred due to a sudden fight without premeditation, the accused acted in the heat of passion, shared a common intention to assault, and one accused inflicted a fatal blow with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death — Th India Law Library Docid # 2425170
(851) PRASANTA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. SRI SOMNATH DUTTA AND SABITA DUTTA ALIAS SABA HAQUE[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 06-03-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 54 — Suit for Specific Performance — Commencement of Limitation — “Date Fixed” vs. Refusal — Interpretation of Agreement — For the purpose of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a “date fixed” for performance must be a specific, definite date expressed in or ascertainable from the agreement itself — Where an agreement stipulates a time period (6 months from the date of agreement) qualifying an intermediary step (like completion of construction and handover of poss India Law Library Docid # 2425171
(852) VECHATBHAI BHAYABHAI RATHVA Vs. GOVINDBHAI DABHAI CHAUHAN AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Contributory negligence — Contributory negligence against the claimant in a motor accident case cannot be sustained by the Tribunal in the absence of any evidence to support such a conclusion, especially when the claimant was walking on the left side of the road — The High Court found that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 10% from the compensation awarded based on a presumption of negligence without any supporting evidence from the opponents — Furthermore, the j India Law Library Docid # 2423265
(853) DINESHBHAI DHULABHAI PARMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. DAMYANTIBEN NARAYANBHAI CHAUHAN AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(b), 10 and 12 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39Rule 2A — Executing an agreement to sell in violation of a status quo order constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and such agreements can be declared void. India Law Library Docid # 2423266
(854) HIRAL DARSHAN CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 — Section 41A — Redevelopment of a building can proceed if the building is over 25 years old, is in a dilapidated condition as declared by the concerned authority (or evident otherwise), and at least 75% of the members of the cooperative housing society consent to it — In this case, the building was over 50 years old, its dilapidated condition was noted in a Municipal Corporation notice, and all 24 members (100%) consented to the redevelopment — Consequently India Law Library Docid # 2423263
(855) PITTA SAMADANA SWAROOPARANI AND OTHERS Vs. PITTA KUMARI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 — Amendments to pleadings, including adding properties in a partition suit, should generally be allowed even after the commencement of trial, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, and the court finds that there was due diligence, as the aim is to comprehensively adjudicate the dispute and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. India Law Library Docid # 2423408
(856) VELAGAPUDI KISHORE KUMAR Vs. BOPPANA VENKATA NAGA KRISHNA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45 — Courts may reject applications for expert examination of documents when prior attempts with multiple scientific laboratories have yielded reports indicating the absence of a reliable scientific method to achieve the sought-after determination, especially if the court perceives the application as a tactic to delay proceedings. India Law Library Docid # 2423409
(857) M/S. MARBLE CENTER AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. SREENIWAS BASUDEO AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Supervisory Jurisdiction vs. Revisional Jurisdiction — The High Court considered whether to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to challenge an order rejecting an application for the rejection of a plaint — The Court noted that if the application for rejection of the plaint had been allowed, it would have amounted to the disposal of the suit, making a proceeding under Section 115 the appropriate remedy, rather than invoking supervisory jurisdiction — India Law Library Docid # 2423500
(858) MUSTT TARA BANU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 420 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Distinction between a civil breach of contract, specifically an agreement for sale of land, and the criminal offences of cheating under Section 420 and criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC — The High Court, in a petition examined whether the framing of charges under these IPC sections was justified — The court concluded that the failure to adhere to the sale agreement and the sub India Law Library Docid # 2423501
(859) THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(21) — A holder of a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a light goods vehicle (pick-up van) if its unloaded weight does not exceed 7500 kg, and no separate endorsement is required — The High Court dismissed an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd., upholding the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal's award of compensation for injuries sustained in an accident caused by a pick-up van — The court found that the driver's ligh India Law Library Docid # 2423570
(860) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGER Vs. ANITA DEVI AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 05-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in motor accident claims should be just, calculated based on gross salary with deduction of income tax, and future prospects should be added as per Pranay Sethi guidelines based on the deceased's age — The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' appeal, directing recalculation of the motor accident compensation award — The court held that the delay in filing the FIR was sufficiently explained and did not invali India Law Library Docid # 2423571