ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(121) SMT. SOMURI RAVALI Vs. SOMURI PURNACHANDRA RAO[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e)(i), 11(6), 29A(4) & (5) — Jurisdiction for Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate — Domestic Arbitration — High Court Appointment — In a domestic arbitration where the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4) or (5) vests solely with the High Court — Consequently, a Commercial
India Law Library Docid # 2424837

(122) MOHAMMAD DASTAGIR KHAN @ ASIF Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Sections 15 & 19 — Two-Stage Assessment for Trying Child as Adult — The Act mandates a two-stage process when determining if a child aged 16-18, alleged to have committed a heinous offence, should be tried as an adult: (i) A preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 15 regarding the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand consequences, and circumstances of the offence; and (ii) A sub
India Law Library Docid # 2424845

(123) ISKA VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY Vs. N.VIJAYA KRISHNA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Pleading and Proof — In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the plaintiff must mandatorily plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of the agreement until the date of hearing/decree Readiness pertains to financial capacity, while willingness pertains to conduct — A mere statement in the plaint or affidavit asserting readiness is insufficient
India Law Library Docid # 2424890

(124) KMV PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope and Grounds — The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed and distinct from appellate power It can be exercised upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence (despite due diligence), or on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto — Review cannot be sought merely because the original decision is erroneous on merits — An “error appa
India Law Library Docid # 2424891

(125) SURYAS RAVI PRAKASH RAO Vs. MOHITHE MANOHAR RAO AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — Sections 9, 10, 17, 25 — Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6, 13 — Child Custody — Paramount Consideration — Welfare of Minor— In determining the custody of a minor child, the paramount and often sole consideration for the Court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, is the welfare and best interest of the child The legal rights of the contending parties, including the preferential right of the natural guardian (father), are subordinate to the
India Law Library Docid # 2424894

(126) CHITTIBOTLA BHARDWAJA SARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Appointment of Founder Trustee— Consideration of mandamus to compel respondents (Endowments Department) to appoint the petitioner as Founder Trustee and Chairman of a temple based on alleged hereditary rights, family history of management, and entries recorded in the statutory register under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987.
India Law Library Docid # 2424900

(127) KARRI ROJA RAMANI Vs. JANNADA APPA RAO[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151 & Order 39 Rule 2-A — Police Aid for Injunction Implementation vs. Consequences of Disobedience — Distinction — An application seeking police aid/protection under Section 151 CPC for the implementation of a temporary injunction order (granted under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2) is distinct in scope and purpose from an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, which deals with the consequences (like attachment or detention) for disobedience or breach of an in
India Law Library Docid # 2424905

(128) GANGULA AMMAJI Vs. KUNAPAREDDI SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI DIED AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Finding on Title in Suit for Permanent Injunction — Law is settled that an incidental finding on title, arrived at in a simple suit for permanent injunction based primarily on possession, will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed specifically for declaration of title, particularly if no specific issue regarding title was framed and finally decided in the earlier injunction suit.
India Law Library Docid # 2424908

(129) PRABHJOT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025
Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 — Reservation for Women — Horizontal Reservation — Implementation via advertisement — Where an advertisement was issued subsequent to the notification of the 2020 Rules providing 33% horizontal reservation for women, and specified certain posts (like DSP ‘SC Sports’) as reserved for women (‘SC Sports (Women)’), this reservation specification within the advertisement, implementing the mandate of the 2020 Rules, is valid for that r
India Law Library Docid # 2424442

(130) R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJMANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope and Power of High Court — A second appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which it must formulate precisely (S. 100(1), (3), (4)) — The High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to deciding the substantial question(s) of law so formulated (or any other substantial question after recording reasons under the proviso to S. 100(5)) — The High Court should adjudicate the formula
India Law Library Docid # 2424443

(131) NEHA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025
Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods — The specific prohibition contained in S. 13(7)(i) explicitly disallows ITC facility in respect of purchases
India Law Library Docid # 2424444

(132) SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. ADITYA SARDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Nature and Scope — Power to grant anticipatory bail under S. 438 is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, not as a matter of routine — Its object is to protect individuals from harassment or humiliation, but this must be balanced against the larger societal interest in maintaining law and order and ensuring
India Law Library Docid # 2424445

(133) CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, C.G.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 271(1)(c) — Penalty for Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars — Bona Fide Error vs. Mens Rea — Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof — A mere bona fide, inadvertent error in computation or data feeding in the return of income does not automatically attract penalty, especially when the correct figures are available in accompanying documents like the Tax Audit Report filed under Section 44AB
India Law Library Docid # 2424712

(134) KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528) — Inherent Powers — Interference with Investigation & Stay of Arrest — The High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Sec 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice should be exercised cautiously and sparingly regarding ongoing criminal investigations — Courts should generally refrain from stalling investigations, especially at the initial stage, if the FIR or
India Law Library Docid # 2424887

(135) S. SWAPNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Sentence — Imprisonment for Life — Meaning and Duration— A sentence of imprisonment for life, imposed either directly or upon commutation from a death sentence, means incarceration for the remainder of the convicted person’s natural life — This position is conclusively settled by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. (Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra, Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs. State of Bihar, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, Sangeet & Anr vs. State of Haryana fo
India Law Library Docid # 2424893

(136) MANEPALLI MOHAN RAO Vs. M/S SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of Suit/Proceeding — Apprehension of Bias — Standard Required — The law is well settled that for a case to be transferred under Section 24 CPC on the ground of apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial, such apprehension must be reasonable and not merely imaginary or based on conjectures and surmises Mere allegations or subjective feelings are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate circumstances from which a
India Law Library Docid # 2424910

(137) MANEPALLI MOHAN RAO Vs. KOTIPALLI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI PARVATHI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 — Transfer of Suit/Proceeding — Apprehension of Bias — Standard Required — Effect of Judge’s Transfer — For seeking transfer of a case under Section 24 CPC based on an apprehension of not getting a fair trial or justice due to alleged bias of the presiding Judicial Officer, the apprehension must be reasonable and based on cogent circumstances, not merely subjective or conjectural — Mere allegations are insufficient — Furthermore, if the specific Judi
India Law Library Docid # 2424911

(138) ISHAN GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Education — Competitive Examinations — JEE (Main) 2025 — Change of Reservation Category (General to PwD/PwBD) — Request Post Session I Result Declaration but Pre Session II Result Declaration — Judicial Intervention — Petitioner applied for JEE (Main) 2025 under General Category, appeared in Session I, result declared — Subsequently obtained Disability Certificate (Specific Learning Disability) and requested change to PwD/PwBD category before appearing in Session II — Petitioner volunteered unde
India Law Library Docid # 2424937

(139) MADHURI PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. SOHAN LAL PANDEY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Assessment of Husband’s Income — Burden of Proof — In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the onus lies upon the petitioner (wife/child) seeking maintenance or enhancement thereof, to substantiate claims regarding the respondent-husband’s income through cogent evidence — Mere assertions regarding the husband’s employment, salary (Rs. 40,000/- per month from a job in Surat), side businesses, or ownership of substantial agric
India Law Library Docid # 2424989

(140) STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 364 — Kidnapping or Abducting in order to Murder — Proof of Intent — Contradictions in Testimony — Acquittal under Section 364 IPC upheld where the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent to murder or put the complainant in danger of being murdered — Complainant’s testimony revealed the demand was to compel marriage or payment, not primarily murder — Material improvement and contradiction between the initial Complaint (stating voluntary entry into th
India Law Library Docid # 2424990