(941) POOJA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 439(2) and 482 — Cancellation of Bail — Supervening Circumstances — Effect of Passage of Time and Interim Protection — Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming supervening circumstances demonstrating misuse of liberty, interference with justice, or other factors rendering the accused's continued freedom detrimental to a fair trial — It India Law Library Docid # 2424013
(942) S.K. JOSHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Departmental Inquiry — Quashing of Chargesheet — Misinterpretation of Court Order — Where a chargesheet alleges dereliction of duty against an official based on the premise that an adverse ex-parte order was passed against the State due to his inaction, but a perusal of the said High Court order reveals it merely directed consideration of a representation without granting substantive relief, the charges are founded on a misreading or misinterpretation of the India Law Library Docid # 2424140
(943) HIRALAL SHRI KANHAIYALAL YADAV (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. SMT. PREMLATA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. GYARSIBAIAND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rule 3 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Substitution of Legal Heirs — Condonation of Delay — Formal Application Necessity — The dismissal of an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing legal heirs on record solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period and was not accompanied by a formal application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is erroneous — Following the principle laid down in State of India Law Library Docid # 2424141
(944) DY. GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. DY. GENERAL MANAGER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Industrial Law — Voluntary Cessation of Employment — Bipartite Settlement — Proof of Notice Service — Where a Bipartite Settlement clause permits deeming an employee to have voluntarily ceased employment upon failure to report for duty within 30 days of a notice, the onus lies strictly on the employer (management) to prove that such notice was validly issued and served upon the employee at their last known address — Mere existence of the notice on record without proof of dispatch by registered p India Law Library Docid # 2424142
(945) SHALIGRAM Vs. AJAY[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence (including registered sale deed Ex.P/1 and India Law Library Docid # 2424143
(946) SHRINARAYAN OJHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Natural Justice — Denial of Reasonable Opportunity — Where a departmental enquiry is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, demonstrated by factors such as an incomplete charge sheet (lacking essential lists of documents/witnesses), non-supply of relied-upon or requested documents, recording evidence behind the delinquent employee's back, and denial of effective opportunity India Law Library Docid # 2424144
(947) TAKHAT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18, 19 & 26 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Reference Proceedings — Limitation — Once the Collector makes a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court is mandatorily required under Section 26 to pass an award determining the objections — The Court cannot dismiss the reference application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation, even if raised by the respondent/State — The questi India Law Library Docid # 2424145
(948) SMT. POONAM Vs. DULE SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 — Section 20(2)(b)(i) — An objection regarding the locus standi of an election petitioner, based on their status as a voter of the concerned ward, requires specific pleading in the written statement and potentially the framing of an issue by the trial court; failure by the returned candidate to do so or to enter the witness box to substantiate the claim weakens the objection, especially when the election petitioner provides documentary proof of being a registered vo India Law Library Docid # 2424146
(949) KISHAWAR SINGH Vs. LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Regularization — Temporary/Contractual Election Work — Claim for regular appointment based on past temporary/contractual service as Assistant Grade-3 rendered during election periods — Petitioner appointed for short durations in 2003 and later in 2014 on a contractual basis for election duties India Law Library Docid # 2424147
(950) RAKESH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PUBLIC, AT GENERAL AND OTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 372, 373, 387 — Succession Certificate — Nature and Scope of Proceedings — Determination of Title — Proceedings under Section 372, read with Section 373, for the grant of a succession certificate are summary in nature, primarily aimed at facilitating the collection of debts due to the deceased and protecting debtors who make payments to the certificate holder — Such proceedings do not conclusively determine the title or adjudicate the substantive rights of the app India Law Library Docid # 2424169
(951) MAGAN LAL BHATI Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL BHATI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Jurisdiction — Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Section 207 — Nature of Land — For determining jurisdiction and deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must consider the substance of the plaint averments read as a whole — Where the plaint asserts, and the defendant admits in pleadings, that land recorded as ‘agricultural’ in revenue records has factually changed its nature to residential/non-agricultural use India Law Library Docid # 2424222
(952) SUPRIYA SUNIL ZAMBARE Vs. SUNIL UTTAM ZAMBARE[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) — Striking Out Defence / Dismissal of Suit — Non-Compliance with Interim Order — Order XXXIX Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) of the CPC empowers the Court to take stringent action against a party who commits default or contravenes an interim order passed during the pendency of a suit or proceeding — If the default is by the plaintiff/applicant, the suit/proceeding may be dismissed; if the default is by the defendant/opponent, their d India Law Library Docid # 2424280
(953) VICKY MANOJ SHAH Vs. KANAL VICKY SHAH AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(s), 12 — Definitions — Aggrieved Person and Shared Household — Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act), an “aggrieved person” as defined in Section 2(a) can only be a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence — Consequently, a male respondent (husband) cannot claim the status of an “aggrieved person” under the Act — The defini India Law Library Docid # 2424297
(954) SRI. MANJUNATH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 — Clause 5, Clause 6 — Fair Price Depot Authorisation — Eligibility as Pre-requisite for Priority — Clause 6(1) of the 1992 Order, dealing with the order of priority for granting Fair Price Depot authorisation, expressly begins with the phrase “Subject to the provisions of Clause 5” — This makes compliance with the eligibility conditions laid down in Clause 5 a mandatory pre-requisite before the question of priority India Law Library Docid # 2424348
(955) MUNAWWAR SULTANA MIRZA NAEEM BAIG AND OTHERS Vs. MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR & RECONSTRUCTION BOARD (MHADA UNIT) AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act) — Section 79-A — Redevelopment of Dilapidated Cessed Building — Right of Tenants/Occupants — Procedure and Timelines — Section 79-A of the MHADA Act outlines a sequential procedure for the redevelopment of dilapidated cessed buildings classified as dangerous — Primarily, the owner/landlord is granted an initial period (three months from the notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888) to undertake redevelop India Law Library Docid # 2424367
(956) ADIUVO DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Patents Act, 1970 — Section 25(1) — Judicial Review of Pre-Grant Opposition Rejection — Alternative Remedy — While the Patents Act, 1970 does not provide a statutory appeal against the rejection of a pre-grant opposition, the High Court retains discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere if the decision-making process is flawed — However, the Court will ordinarily decline to exercise this term “Held” and referencing the relevant paragraph India Law Library Docid # 2424459
(957) E.T. MOHANAN Vs. PANKAJAKSHY AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Nucleus — Burden of Proof — While there is a presumption that a Hindu family is joint, there is no presumption that it possesses joint property — The burden lies on the person alleging that property is joint family property to prove the existence of an adequate nucleus of ancestral property from which subsequent acquisitions could have been made — Once adequate nucleus is proved, the burden shifts to the member claiming property as self-acquired to prove it wa India Law Library Docid # 2424582
(958) FAKRUDEEN K.V. @ FAKRUDEEN PANTHAVOOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Sections 3(1)(r), 18 & 18A — Anticipatory Bail — Prima Facie Case — Insult or Intimidation in Public View — For determining the applicability of the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, the court must ascertain if a prima facie case for an offence under the Act is made out — An offence under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a mem India Law Library Docid # 2424583
(959) P.A. THOMAS (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. SOUTHERN HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Specific Performance — Readiness and Willingness — Proof — Conduct of Parties — In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract continuously — While financial capacity is relevant, readiness and willingness encompass more than just financial means and include the plaintiff’s conduct and intention throughout — Where the plaintiff has paid a substantial portion of the India Law Library Docid # 2424584
(960) PICHI AND OTHERS Vs. ARULAN NADAR ANANTHAPAPPU AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Execution Proceedings — Scope — Res Judicata — The scope of inquiry under Section 47 CPC is confined to questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree — An executing court cannot go behind the decree unless the decree is shown to be a nullity or passed without inherent jurisdiction — Objections regarding the correctness or legality of the decree, or matters that were raised or could have been raised and were decided during India Law Library Docid # 2424585