(1) DINESH KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH SINGH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope – The High Court, in criminal revision against conviction, is not supposed to exercise jurisdiction like an appellate court; the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow — The object of Section 397 CrPC is to rectify patent defects or errors of jurisdiction or law — A well-founded error, determined on the merits of each individual case, is required for interference — The Revisional Cou India Law Library Docid # 2427478
(2) M/S COTTAGE ARTS EMPORIUM Vs. INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 — Sections 7(1) & 7(2) — Recovery of arrears of rent and damages — Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 — The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 7(1) as well as to proceedings for recovery of damages under Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The distinction previously drawn between Section 7(1) and 7(2) regarding the applicability India Law Library Docid # 2427479
(3) COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. Vs. SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — A court has the power to dismiss a suit at the threshold if any of the grounds specified in Order VII Rule 11 are met, aiming to prevent unnecessary delays and end sham litigation — The court must perform a meaningful reading of the plaint to determine if it displays a real cause of action or something purely illusory, and should nip vexatious and meritless litigation in the bud when clever drafting creates an illusion India Law Library Docid # 2427480
(4) VASAVA LILABEN D/O KESURBHAI AND W/O SHANTIBHAI AND ANOTHER Vs. BHARATKUMAR BALDEVBHAI DESAI[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7, Rule 11(a) — Rejection of Plaint — No Cause of Action — Suit for permanent injunction by holder of unregistered agreement to sell without seeking specific performance — An unregistered agreement to sell holder cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction alone without seeking specific performance of the agreement, as such a suit does not disclose a cause of action. India Law Library Docid # 2427481
(5) M/S. VRAJ DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THROUGH PARTNER AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESHBHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Illusory cause of action – Clever drafting – When the averments in the plaint, read meaningfully and holistically (including supporting documents), reveal that the claimed cause of action is merely an illusion to circumvent the statute of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The court must scrutinize whether the litigation is India Law Library Docid # 2427482
(6) GOPAL CHAND Vs. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — The High Court can only interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only a view consistent with the accused’s guilt is possible from the evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2427483
(7) SHRI KRISHNARAO KODANCHA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964 — Sections 187 & 188 — Building Licence — Cancellation — Power of Authority — A building licence issued under Section 188 of the Act can only be revoked on grounds of material misrepresentation or fraudulent statements in the initial application furnished under Section 187 of the Act — Section 187(9) of the Act outlines conditions for commencement of construction, adherence to plan, and compliance with regulations, but does not provide for cancellation of an India Law Library Docid # 2427484
(8) SUREKHA Vs. AXIS BANK AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — High Courts — Writ Jurisdiction — Powers — Mandamus — Appointment of Guardian — Adult in Vegetative/Comatose State — No specific statutory provision for appointment of guardian for an adult in a comatose/vegetative state — High Court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to mould relief and issue directions to meet the peculiar requirements of such a case, especially when existing statutory remedies are India Law Library Docid # 2427486
(9) BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. KAP SINHA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Civil Contempt – Wilful Disobedience – Definition – Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience to a court order; it’s not merely non-compliance – The court must find that disobedience was wilful and intentional – If non-compliance resulted from compelling circumstances, the alleged contemnor may not be punished – Contempt proceedings are not execution proceedings; the focus is on the wilfulness of the disobedience, not simply failure to India Law Library Docid # 2427487
(10) BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 2(24) and 28 — Capital receipt vs. Revenue receipt — Sales Tax Incentive — Subsidies/incentives provided by State Government schemes to encourage industrial development in backward areas — “Purpose Test” — If the incentive’s purpose is to facilitate the establishment or expansion of an industrial unit, it is a capital receipt; if its purpose is to enable the business to operate more profitably, it is a revenue receipt — The form or mechanism of payment India Law Library Docid # 2427473
(11) SARAVANA PRASAD Vs. ENDEMOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against interim orders of Arbitral Tribunal — Section 17 — Interim measures by Arbitral Tribunal — Scope of Interference — The High Court, when hearing an appeal under Section 37 against an order passed under Section 17, should not substitute its own view for a reasonable and plausible view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal unless the Tribunal’s view is implausible or untenable. India Law Library Docid # 2427474
(12) ARUNLAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Law — Rape (Section 376 IPC) — Consent — Mental Disability — Effect on Consent — Where the victim has “moderate intellectual disability” and a mental age between 9 and 10 years, her consent to sexual intercourse is not valid and thus the act constitutes rape. The court confirms the trial court’s finding of guilt for rape. India Law Library Docid # 2427416
(13) RENJITH PANNACKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 211, 212, 213, 214, 218, 228, 240 — Charge — Contents of Charge — Distinct Offences — Requirement of separate and distinct charges for each distinct offence — Purpose of framing charge is to provide clear and unambiguous notice to the accused regarding the accusation — Clubbing all offences together without distinct charges and clarity is not in accordance with law — Charge found to be improperly framed, requiring interference and re-framing as per India Law Library Docid # 2427417
(14) BANDLAMUDI SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. BANDLAMUDI KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Findings of Fact — High Court cannot ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of the First Appellate Court, which is the final court of facts. Interference is permissible only if findings are erroneous, contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence, or if vital admissible evidence was not considered, leading to a failure of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2427418
(15) SUPTD.ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH NELLORE Vs. H.S BHATT AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Arbitral Award — Challenge to — Interference by Court — An arbitral award should not be interfered with lightly; only when there is total unreasonableness, error on the face of the record, or misconduct by the arbitrator will the court intervene. The arbitrator is the final arbiter of the dispute, and parties cannot challenge the award merely because the arbitrator’s conclusion differs from their expectation or because they disagree with the appreciation India Law Library Docid # 2427419
(16) SRI R.M. MANJUNATH GOWDA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Bail — Twin conditions — While Section 45 imposes strict conditions for bail in PMLA cases, including satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses, these conditions do not create an absolute bar to bail. The court’s discretion is judicial, not arbitrary, and must maintain a delicate balance, avoiding a mini-trial on merits. The court needs to find only a “genu India Law Library Docid # 2427421
(17) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RUDRA NARAYAN MISHRA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Service Law — Pay Fixation — Running Staff — General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE) — Applicability of Railway Board Establishment (RBE) circularly — Effect of RBE No. 132 of 2006 on pay fixation of running staff appointed through GDCE — The core issue is whether RBE No. 132 of 2006, which clarifies that the 30% pay element for running staff is not admissible for those appointed through GDCE if there are no specific orders to that effect, has India Law Library Docid # 2427423
(18) SHRI VINDHYAVASINI MAA BILAIMATA PUJARI PARISHAD COMMITTEE Vs. VINDHYAVASINI MANDIR TRUST SAMITI THROUGH SO CALLED PRESIDENT SATISH RAO PAWAR @ BOBY[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Dismissal of Writ Petition — A writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Revenue Board’s order was dismissed where the petitioner lacked locus standi, as they were not a party to the original revision proceedings before the Board, and the challenged order was already based on a conclusive civil court judgment. India Law Library Docid # 2427475
(19) UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs. DINESH TATI[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 306 (now Section 343 BNSS) — Tender of Pardon to Accomplice — Object and Applicability — The primary objective of tendering pardon is to prevent offenders from escaping punishment in heinous cases due to lack of evidence, by obtaining testimony from an accomplice. The grant of pardon is not based on the accomplice’s culpability but on the necessity to secure evidence that would otherwise be unobtainable. Pardon can be tendered if India Law Library Docid # 2427476
(20) PRATIMA XAXA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Mutation — Effect of — Mutation entries in revenue records are for fiscal and administrative purposes only, and do not create, extinguish, or transfer title to immovable property. They merely enable the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay land revenue. India Law Library Docid # 2427477