(941) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against Acquittal — Scope of High Court's Interference — Principles for Reviewing Acquittal — The High Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence; however, the scope of interference is limited — Interference is warranted only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading/omission of material evidence, India Law Library Docid # 2437995
(942) KHUSHAL CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. KANCHNA DEVI AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with findings of fact — High Court cannot ordinarily interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court, the final court of facts, unless such findings are erroneous, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence, or arrived at without evidence — Re India Law Library Docid # 2437988
(943) RAGHUBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS SATNAM KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. KANAURA RAM AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of interference — Concurrent findings of fact — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute its own view for a plausible finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court — Interference in Second Appeal is restricted to cases involving a substantial question of law, or where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or India Law Library Docid # 2437989
(944) K.VIJAYARANGAM (DECEASED) Vs. M/S. BAJAJ PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Seeking Condonation of Delay of 3110 Days in Filing Civil Revision Petition — Order Challenged: Dismissal of Application (I.A.No.16309 of 2013) to Condone Delay of 1350 Days in Setting Aside Ex-parte Decree — Requirement of Sufficient Cause — The court must restrict inquiry to whether applicant provided sufficient cause for delay; merits of main suit are secondary until sufficient cause is established — India Law Library Docid # 2438123
(945) L.MUNIYANDI Vs. K.DINESH RAJA[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 — Section 4(2) — Section 21(2)(a) — Eviction — Splitting of Tenancy — Requirement of Joint Action by Co-lessors — The premises (a factory shed constructed over 3600 sq.ft of land jointly owned and rented out by two co-owners) was let out under a single agreement for a consolidated rent — The respondent (one co-owner) filed an eviction petition against the tenant, restricting the claim only to his India Law Library Docid # 2438124
(946) G.MANGAYARKARASI Vs. ELIZABETH AMIRTHAKANNU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 1(3) — Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit — Requirements for granting leave — Court must be satisfied and record reasons/finding that the defect is "formal" or that there are "sufficient grounds" warranting leave — Such discretion must be exercised judiciously, not in a routine manner or on mere asking — Trial court's order granting leave without identifying or recording reasons for the existence of a formal defect or India Law Library Docid # 2438125
(947) A.RAJAKUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ZONAL II, HR & CE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — Section 78 — Encroachment on Temple Property — Land belonging to Temple — The property in question belongs to the Arulmigu Ekambareswara Thirukoil, administered by the HR & CE Department — Appellants/Writ Petitioners admitted in 2016 that the land belongs to the Temple and that substantial rent arrears were due, which amounts to India Law Library Docid # 2438126
(948) PRASANNA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311(2)(b) – Dismissal from service dispensing with inquiry – Requirements – Disciplinary authority must be satisfied that holding an inquiry is not "reasonably practicable" – Such satisfaction must be based on objective facts, not whim or caprice – Reasons must be recorded in writing and must be relevant to the situation. India Law Library Docid # 2438163
(949) ROHIT ANAND DAS AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Privacy — Right to privacy is a fundamental human right, recognized under Article 21, and though not absolute, it can only be subject to reasonable restrictions. India Law Library Docid # 2438164
(950) PARADIP PORT TRUST (PPT) Vs. PARESH CONSTRUCTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD. (PCFPL)[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Extension of Mandate — Maintaining writ jurisdiction — Court will not lightly re-examine factual assessments made by Section 29A court regarding delay, cause, or sufficiency when exercising supervisory jurisdiction, unless the decision suffers from a jurisdictional flaw or clear departure from statutory scheme. India Law Library Docid # 2438165
(951) M/S GOLDENLAND DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 — Section 11 — Release of attached property — Furnishing security — This section allows for cancellation of an entire ad-interim attachment order upon furnishing satisfactory security, but does not permit partial release of attached India Law Library Docid # 2438166
(952) ROJESH NAYAK Vs. THE C.G.M. (TECH) & REGIONAL OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order refusing to set aside arbitral award — Scope of interference is limited to grounds under Section 34 — Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view — Interference only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or violation of statutory principles. India Law Library Docid # 2438167
(953) M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. Vs. J.P. MISHRA & COMPANY[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order refusing to set aside arbitral award — Scope of appellate jurisdiction — Court's power under Section 37 is significantly restricted and narrow, allowing interference only when the order appears perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. The appellate court cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the lower court or India Law Library Docid # 2438168
(954) PRABHASINI BATIK Vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED, MUMBAI AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Writ Jurisdiction — Maintainability against private entities — A writ petition is generally not maintainable against a private entity engaged in a purely contractual and commercial transaction, such as a loan agreement, unless the entity is performing a public duty or discharging a statutory obligation. India Law Library Docid # 2438210
(955) GANESHA Vs. RAHAMATHULLA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 10 — Notice of Accident — Not mandatory when accident occurs at the workplace — The purpose of Section 10 is to protect the employer from penalties and interest if they are unaware of the accident, but a lack of notice is not a bar to a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident or if the accident occurred at the workplace. India Law Library Docid # 2438235
(956) SRI. PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA Vs. SRI. DINESH PULIPATI[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Liquidation Process — Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Participation Deposit Money (PDM) — The High Court held that a Liquidator appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is empowered to forfeit the EMD and PDM deposited by a bidder who fails to fulfill their obligations as per the auction terms — The court found that the Auction Memorandum, which stipulated the conditions for forfeiture, was binding on the bidder — The court India Law Library Docid # 2438239
(957) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPOST AND AIR CARGO COMMISSIONERATE Vs. M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Exchange Management Act - Import-Export Policy 1997-2002 - Violation of Conditions - Value Addition - Confiscation of Goods - Penalties - Assessee claiming benefit of exemption notification must strictly comply with its conditions. If conditions are not fulfilled, the exemption is not available, and the goods India Law Library Docid # 2438283
(958) SRI. PREM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Land Acquisition Act — Deletion of lands from acquisition — Previous court orders allowed for applications for deletion of lands based on certain parameters. However, the petitioners had previously filed a memo stating they had no objection to the acquisition and subsequently sought compensation, indicating their intent to be compensated rather than have their lands deleted. The Committee correctly found that the deletion was not in accordance with court directions and the landowners' conduct. India Law Library Docid # 2438286
(959) SMT. SUNITA SAH AND OTHERS Vs. SRI ANUP SINGH SAHI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1)(a) — Release application — Applicability of Act — Burden of proof — Landlords pleaded applicability of the Act. Tenant asserted a special defence that the rent exceeded the statutory ceiling to exclude the premises from the Act's protection. The burden was on the tenant to plead and prove such jurisdictional facts. A single India Law Library Docid # 2438413
(960) SOMALA SUSEELA AND OTHERS Vs. L. KHADER BASHA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-12-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor accident claim — Appeals by claimants challenging quantum of compensation awarded by tribunal — Appeals consolidated as factual aspects and defenses were same — Court's role is to determine just compensation. India Law Library Docid # 2438471