India Law Library

User not Logged..

India Law Library AI
Lex AI Legal Document Intelligence Assistant

Latest Cases

(981) MRS. ANU MALHOTRA Vs. MR. IQBAL CHAND MALHOTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 30-10-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 38 Rules 1, 5 — Attachment before judgment — Money suit — Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt — Drastic power under Order 38 Rule 5 must be exercised sparingly and not mechanically — Object is to prevent a defendant from defeating execution, not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt — Where suit was filed for recovery of amounts advanced between 2006 and 2025, and trial court failed to comply with statutory mandate of issuing show-ca
India Law Library Docid # 2457897

(982) PRESIDENT, PARAMPUJYA DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR SMARAK SAMITI, DEEKSHABHOOMI, NAGPUR BEARING P.T.R. NO. F-666(N), DR. BHADANT ARYA NAGARJUN SHUREI SASAI Vs. DR. BHUVANESHWARI W/O ASHOK MEHRE AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 30-10-2026
Service Law — Appointment of College Principal — Tenure Post vs. Probation — University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, Regulation 1.2 and Clause (V)(B) — Respondent was appointed as College Principal under an appointment order stipulating a two-year probation period, and was subsequently reverted to faculty upon non-confirmation of probation — Held, under UGC Regulations, 2018, adopted by the State of Maharashtra, the post of College Principal is a tenure appointment for five years, extend
India Law Library Docid # 2457903

(983) JAYNAB ARA KHATUN Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Habeas Corpus — Inter-state apprehension — Production before jurisdictional Court — Petitioner was apprehended at an airport in West Bengal pursuant to an FIR registered at Noida, Uttar Pradesh — Magistrate rejected transit remand and bail, keeping petitioner in custody — State failed to demonstrate any pending case against petitioner in West Bengal, all criminal cases being registered in Uttar Pradesh — High Court directed that petitioner be immediate
India Law Library Docid # 2457905

(984) DINABANDHU MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory bail — Custodial interrogation — Altercation between two groups — Petitioner named in FIR contended he suffered injuries earlier and relied on medical records — State's memo of evidence revealed nine witnesses examined and weapons recovered pursuant to leading statements of co-accused — No leading statement made by petitioner — Considering nature of offences and progress made in investigation, custodial interrogation held not
India Law Library Docid # 2457907

(985) VINAY PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise — Matrimonial discord — Offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code — Parties amicably resolved their entire dispute through mediation and filed compromise affidavits — Held, offences involved are private in nature and not heinous or involving mental depravity — Inherent power of High
India Law Library Docid # 2457957

(986) SAMUEL MURMU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Appreciation of evidence — Conviction based solely on testimony of prosecutrix — Solitary testimony is sufficient to convict an accused of rape provided it inspires confidence and is of sterling quality — Prosecutrix alleged an hour-long struggle during the commission of rape, yet medical examination revealed no internal or external injuries, and the investigating officer found no marks of struggle or violence at the scene — Prosecutrix
India Law Library Docid # 2457958

(987) BIMAL PODDAR @ BIMAL KUMAR PODDAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Bihar Finance Act, 1981 — Sections 49(2)(b) and 49(3)(d) — Tax evasion — Fraudulent Form-F and suppression of sales — Conviction upheld — Accused, partner of a firm, submitted fraudulent and forged statutory Form-F, undervaluing entries and misdeclaring high-taxed vanaspati/dalda as mustard oil to evade commercial tax — Material exhibits and transaction sheets established deliberate discrepancies to evade sales tax — Plea of non-examination of second Investigating Officer and lack of proof regar
India Law Library Docid # 2457959

(988) ARVIND LAL GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty — Revisional jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of guilt — Petitioner-husband challenged his conviction for subjecting his wife to physical assault, mental harassment, and monetary demands — Contention that acquittal of co-accused in-laws warranted petitioner's acquittal rejected — Trial court and appellate court concurrently recorded findings of guilt based on specific acts of cruelty and neglect by the husband — High Court declined to interfere with co
India Law Library Docid # 2457960

(989) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMGARH AND OTHERS Vs. JANKI MAHTO AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 — Re-determination of compensation — Plea of limitation — Deemed admission — Landowners claimed filing Section 28-A application within the statutory three-month period, but it was lost by the Land Acquisition authority — State failed to specifically deny the averment in its show-cause reply — Held, facts not specifically denied are deemed admitted under Order VIII of CPC — State cannot derive
India Law Library Docid # 2457961

(990) PACHHU SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Death of victim prior to trial — Appreciation of ocular evidence — Where the prosecutrix died before trial and could not depose, the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial and ocular witnesses. The sole alleged eye-witness gave highly contradictory statements regarding hearing hue and cry, failing to disclose the incident to villagers, and letting the accused escape. Other witnesses offered conflicting and hearsay versions. In the absence of re
India Law Library Docid # 2457962

(991) GANGADHAR RAJWAR Vs. RAM PRASAD RAJWAR[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Oral relinquishment — Validity in partition — Property acquired by mother devolved upon her death on three legal heirs: two sons and one daughter — Plaintiff contended that daughter orally relinquished her share — Held, an oral plea of relinquishment cannot be accepted as relinquishment constitutes a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, mandatorily requiring registration — In the absence of a registered instrument or a judicia
India Law Library Docid # 2457963

(992) SHIV BACHAN PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 and Section 141 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Common intention — Deceased assaulted when intervening to rescue father after an altercation during a marriage ceremony — General and omnibus allegations against surviving appellants without establishing specific overt acts — Primary blow attributed to deceased co-accused — Prosecution failed to establish that surviving appellants shared common intention or constituted an unl
India Law Library Docid # 2457965

(993) PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Settlement between parties — Inherent powers of High Court — Dispute between petitioners and informant was private in nature involving no element of public interest — Parties entered into an amicable settlement supported by affidavits — Held, inherent power under Section 528 can be exercised to quash proceedings where offences are not heinous, the dispute is predominantly private, and the possibility of c
India Law Library Docid # 2457966

(994) TARABATI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. MD. SEIKH HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim petition — Standard of proof — Summary proceedings under beneficial legislation — Preponderance of probabilities vs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Tribunal dismissed claim petition treating the matter as a criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt — Held, Claims Tribunal deals with summary claims under beneficial social legislation where the accepted standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Tribunal
India Law Library Docid # 2457967

(995) SUMAN KUMAR MANDAL Vs. KUMARI RASHMI SINHA[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19(1) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96 — First Appeal — Appellate jurisdiction and perversity — An appeal under Section 19(1) lies both on facts and on law and is a rehearing of the matter, permitting the High Court to reappraise, reappreciate, and review the entire evidence — A finding is perverse if arrived at by ignoring relevant material, considering irrelevant material, or if it outrageously defies logic — Subordinate court findings can be rever
India Law Library Docid # 2457968

(996) RADHA GOVIND UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Radha Govind University Act, 2018 — Section 43 — Appointment of Administrator — Mandatory statutory procedure — The State Government issued a show cause notice granting only 15 days to the petitioner-University to reply instead of the mandatory statutory period of 45 days under Section 43(1) — Held, Section 43 is a self-contained code providing a specific mechanism for appointing an administrator — When a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner
India Law Library Docid # 2457974

(997) COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Maintainability of writ petition challenging reference — Competence of referring authority — Reference made by State Government challenged for want of jurisdiction — Held, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to examine whether the authority making the reference was competent as the "appropriate Government" — The Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction strictly from the refe
India Law Library Docid # 2457975

(998) SRI. SANJAY VARMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Factories Act, 1948 — Section 2(l) — Definition of "worker" — Post-1976 amendment — Inclusion of contract labour — Workmen engaged by a sub-contractor sustained burn injuries during revamp and upgradation of refinery units — Occupier contended that victims were not factory employees and unit operations were temporarily shut down — Held, post-1976 amendment, the definition of "worker" expressly includes persons employed directly or through any agency, including a contractor — Work of revamping an
India Law Library Docid # 2457978

(999) K. V. N. GOVINDARAJU Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 190(1)(b) and 482 — Cognizance — Lack of reasons — Higher Court supplementing reasons — An order taking cognizance based on a police report lacking explicit reasons does not invariably require remand to the Court of first instance. The High Court or Sessions Court examining the order is fully empowered to inspect the charge-sheet and supplement reasons to sustain the cognizance, provided sufficient material exists. Assigning such reasons does not m
India Law Library Docid # 2457979

(1000) MISS. IRAM PATHAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 30-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 177, 178(c), 179 and 182 — Territorial jurisdiction — Offences under Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code — Digital communication and continuing offence — Accused persons communicated with complainant via matrimonial site and social media, allegedly demanding money, issuing threats, and causing loss of job and reputation in Bengaluru — Contention that Bengaluru police lacked jurisdiction as money was allegedly extorted in Mumbai rejecte
India Law Library Docid # 2457980