(101) NAFEES AHMAD AND ANOTHER Vs. SOINUDDIN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — Contents of Appellate Judgment — Points for Determination — Mandatory vs. Directory — Substantial Compliance — The requirement under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC for an appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision is not mandatory to the extent that any non-compliance automatically vitiates the judgment, rendering it wholly void — Whether there has been substantial compliance depends India Law Library Docid # 2424861
(102) MEHTA PRASHANTBHAI MUKUNDRAY PARTNER M/S COAL CORPORATION Vs. M/S MAGNIFICO MINERALS PVT LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S. 141 — Vicarious Liability — Requirement to Implead Company/Firm as Primary Accused: Discussion reaffirming the principle established in Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda (2022 SCC OnLine SC 579) and other precedents that vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act can only be fastened onto directors/partners if the company or firm, being the primary offender, is also arrayed as an accused in the complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2424869
(103) ABBVIE BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC AND ANOTHER Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENT DESIGNS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025 Patents Act, 1970 — Section 59(1) — Permissibility of Amendments — Scope of Claims — Amendments to a patent application or specification under Section 59(1) are permissible only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation for incorporating an actual fact — Crucially, such amendments must not result in the amended specification claiming or describing matter not disclosed in substance in the original specification, and the amended claims must fall wholly within the scope of the claims as orig India Law Library Docid # 2424929
(104) BHAVNA LATHER AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482] — Anticipatory Bail — Maintainability after Issuance of NBW / Proclamation (S. 82 CrPC) — The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power — Once non-bailable warrants (NBWs) have been issued against an accused, or more significantly, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated due to non-appearance and evasion of process, the accused is generally not entitled India Law Library Docid # 2424930
(105) MRS. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. LOTUS GREENS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 122 — Application for Restoration (Order IX Rule 9 CPC) — Limitation Period — An application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside a dismissal for default and restoring the suit must be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal, as prescribed by Article 122 of the Limitation Act — An application filed beyond this period, without an accompanying application for condonation of delay supported by sufficient cause, is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. India Law Library Docid # 2424931
(106) PINKI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC — High Court granted b India Law Library Docid # 2424657
(107) MRS. VARSHATAI W/O. SH. SANJAY BAGADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 — Section 3 — Official Language — Use of Additional Language — The prescription of Marathi as the official language for Local Authorities under Section 3 of the 2022 Act does not operate as a prohibition against the use of any other language, such as Urdu (a language included in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution), in addition to Marathi on signboards of a Municipal Council, particularly for the purpose of effective communication wi India Law Library Docid # 2424694
(108) NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA AND ANOTHER Vs. HITESH P. SANGHVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Bar of Limitation — For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is obligated to consider the averments made in the plaint alone — Where, from a plain reading of the plaint averments, the suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected — No requirement exists to allow parties to lead evidence on limitation when the bar is apparent ex-facie from India Law Library Docid # 2424695
(109) CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Mixed Question of Law and Fact — Copyright Act, 1957 & Designs Act, 2000 — The determination of whether an ‘artistic work’ (under Copyright Act, S. 2(c)) falls within the definition of a ‘design’ (under Designs Act, S. 2(d)) and whether copyright protection ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act due to industrial application involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination beyond th India Law Library Docid # 2424696
(110) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424770
(111) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424800
(112) ASHOK RANI Vs. KASHMIRI LAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Scope of Adjudication by Court — Merits vs. Allowability — While deciding an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court should generally confine itself to whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and whether it causes prejudice to the other side — The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by the amendment are not to be adjudicated upon or decided at India Law Library Docid # 2424932
(113) AMIT VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] — Inherent Powers of High Court — Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings — Settlement in Matrimonial Disputes — Exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings based on an amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner-husband (and his family members) and the respondent No.2-wife — Factors supportin India Law Library Docid # 2424933
(114) ASEEM RAJPAL Vs. DIVYA DUGGAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 23 & 29 — Interim Maintenance — Assessment of Income and Entitlement — Determination of interim maintenance involves a prima facie assessment based on pleadings, income affidavits, and admitted background/lifestyle of parties — Where husband claims low income inconsistent with affluent background and lifestyle, appellate court’s conservative assessment of his income (Rs. 50,000/- pm) for interim maintenance is justified — Wife’s India Law Library Docid # 2424934
(115) AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Copyright Act, 1957 — Sections 18(2), 30, 33(1), 33(3), 33A — Licensing of Copyright — Sound Recordings — Requirement of Copyright Society Registration/Membership — Interpretation — Any person or association of persons (including an assignee of copyright in sound recordings under S. 18(2)) carrying on the “business of issuing or granting licences” in respect of copyrighted works or any other rights conferred by the Act, is mandatorily required by S. 33(1) to do so only under or in accordance wit India Law Library Docid # 2424935
(116) SONU Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-04-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 — Bail — Commercial Quantity — Applicability of Twin Conditions — Grant of regular bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband (Opium Doda) — Where conscious possession of the contraband by the applicant (a driver) is a seriously debatable question of fact to be determined during trial, and considering factors such as: (i) prolong India Law Library Docid # 2424936
(117) JUSTICE V.S. DAVE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF RETD. JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS Vs. KUSUMJIT SIDHU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Service Law — Retired High Court Judges — Reimbursement of Expenses (Medical etc.) — Responsibility of State Government — Clarification of Prior Order — Where a High Court Judge is appointed in one High Court but retires from another High Court due to transfer, the responsibility for reimbursement of expenses (as directed by court orders) lies either with the State Government where the seat of the High Court in which the retired Judge was first appointed is situated, or with the State Government India Law Library Docid # 2425058
(118) REKHA SHARMA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 16, 32 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Recruitment — Judicial Services — Reservation (Horizontal - PwBD; Vertical - EWS/ST) — Minimum Qualifying Marks vs. Cut-off — Adjustment of Candidates — In recruitment processes involving both vertical and horizontal reservations (like for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - PwBD), the non-selection of a PwBD candidate who has secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks but falls below the P India Law Library Docid # 2425060
(119) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SRI BIRESH CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAY[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 11-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528] — Quashing of Cognizance Order and Proceedings — Scope of Inquiry — Abuse of Process — Political Rivalry — In exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (S. 528 BNSS), particularly when factors like potential political rivalry or ulterior motives are alleged, the Court is not limited to accepting the charge sheet averments at face value. It can scrutinize the accompanying materials, witnes India Law Library Docid # 2424835
(120) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMP LTD. Vs. ALLAPURAJU SUJANA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Negligence — Appreciation of Evidence — Eyewitness Testimony vs. Police Reports In adjudicating claims under Section 166, the finding of negligence must be based on a preponderance of probabilities — Direct eyewitness testimony, particularly from credible witnesses like police officers who were inmates of a vehicle involved in the accident, is to be given significantly more weightage and credence than contents of police investigation documents like the In India Law Library Docid # 2424827