(141) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT BUILDING MATERIALS Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Post-Retirement Recovery — Natural Justice — Show Cause Notice — Recovery of alleged excess payments (arising from implementation of 7th CPC) sought from employees after their superannuation, based on undertakings given before superannuation to refund any excess, is impermissible without adhering to principles of natural justice — Issuance of a recovery notice merely demanding refund without providing reasons or basis for the alleged excess, and subsequ India Law Library Docid # 2424991
(142) UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. DR KIRAN GUPTA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Promotion — University Teachers — Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-2010 — Clause 6.3.12 — Effective Date of Promotion — Interpretation of Clause 6.3.12(a) vis-à-vis Clause 6.3.12(c) — Clause 6.3.12(a) of CAS-2010, providing for promotion from the date of minimum eligibility upon successful assessment, applies only when the candidate succeeds in the first assessment after applying upon becoming eligible — Clause 6.3.12(c) applies when a candidate does not succeed in the first assessm India Law Library Docid # 2424992
(143) GAURAV GAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] — Quashing of FIR — Offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — Settlement in Matrimonial Dispute — Exercise of inherent power to quash FIR, along with charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the petitioners (husband and his family members) and the respondent No.2 (wife) — Settlement achieved through mediation, docume India Law Library Docid # 2424993
(144) KIRAN Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 & Order 10 — Judgment on Admissions — Statement Recorded under Order X — A preliminary decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be validly passed based on clear and unequivocal admissions made by the defendant in a statement recorded by the trial court under Order 10 CPC, even if such admissions contradict averments made in the written statement — The scope of “otherwise, whether orally or in writing” under Order 12 Rule 6 encompasse India Law Library Docid # 2424994
(145) MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Vs. COSMO PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Liberal and Justice-Oriented Approach — The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requires a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented interpretation rather than a rigid or purely technical one — The primary objective is to advance substantial justice — While the length of delay is a factor, the explanation offered is decisive — Courts should lean towards condoning delay, especially w India Law Library Docid # 2425074
(146) PURSHOTAM KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. HANUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Onus and Standard — The onus lies squarely on the propounder to prove the due execution and attestation of a Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, by examining at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (if available) — Given the solemnity of a Will, which speaks from death, proof must satisfy the judicial conscience — The standard is not mathematical certai India Law Library Docid # 2425075
(147) DHANI RAM Vs. NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 — Section 15 — Partial Pre-emption — Indivisible Sale Transaction — Co-sharer in one Khewat — The right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, requiring the pre-emptor to take over the entire bargain covered by the sale deed sought to be pre-empted — Where a sale deed conveys land falling in multiple khewats under a single, indivisible transaction, a plaintiff who is a co-sharer in only one of those khewats cannot maintain a suit for pre-empting only the portion India Law Library Docid # 2425076
(148) SUNIL KUMAR @ SHINA Vs. HANUMAN SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment — Just Compensation — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — Amputation Injuries — The principle of ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act requires an award that is fair and equitable, neither meagre nor excessive (‘no less and no more’) — In cases of permanent disability due to amputation, particularly multiple amputations, the assessment of ‘functional disability’ concerning loss of earning capacity is paramount and must b India Law Library Docid # 2425077
(149) KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — ‘Panchsheel’ Principles — In cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be sustained only if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is wholly inconsistent with their innocence — These circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except the one pointing towards the accused’s gui India Law Library Docid # 2425078
(150) RAVINDER SINGH Vs. KULWINDERJIT KAUR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Mental Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown and Long Separation — Where parties to a marriage have been living separately for an exceptionally prolonged period without any resumption of cohabitation or matrimonial ties, and the relationship is marked by bitterness, protracted litigation, and failed reconciliation attempts (including mediation), such circumstances collectively lead to an inference of profound mental cruelty inflicted by the pa India Law Library Docid # 2425079
(151) HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS Vs. PARMILA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Service Law — Reservation — Migration — Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) Candidates — Applicability at Preliminary/Screening Stage — The principle established by the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav vs State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542 and subsequent judgments (Sadhana Singh Dangi, Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah) mandates that the ‘Open Category’ is not a separate quota but is available to all candidates based purely on merit, irrespective of their social category (reserved or unreserved) India Law Library Docid # 2425080
(152) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector — An Additional Collector is competent and possesses the requisite jurisdiction to grant permission for the transfer of land belonging to a member of an indigenous tribe under Section 165(6)(ii), where Section 11 includes 'Additional Collectors' within the class of 'Collector', and a specific, pre India Law Library Docid # 2424370
(153) RAKESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. HDFC BANK LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Contract Act, 1872 — S. 28 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Contractual Clauses — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Validity — Parties to a contract, including an employment contract, are free to agree on conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon a specific court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of other courts which might otherwise be competent under S. 20, CPC — Such a clause is valid and enforceable provided that: (i) it does not absolutely restrict a party from enforcing rights through usual lega India Law Library Docid # 2424371
(154) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Financial assistance received or receivable by dependents of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Rules of 2006, specifically under the head equivalent to ‘pay and other allowances’ last drawn by the deceased, must be deducted/excluded while computing compensation for loss of income/dependency under the Motor India Law Library Docid # 2424372
(155) HYEOKSOO SON AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DAECHANG SEAT AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. Vs. MOON JUNE SEOK AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Scope of Power — The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and with caution — The court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or veracity of the allegations made in the FIR or chargesheet, nor conduct a ‘mini-trial’ — The allegations must be taken at face value to determine if they prima facie constitute an offence a India Law Library Docid # 2424373
(156) M/S. CHATHA SERVICE STATION Vs. LALMATI DEVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 149 (pre-amendment 2019) — Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — R. 9 — Driving Licence — Endorsement for Hazardous Goods — Breach of Policy Condition — Pay and Recover — The absence of a specific endorsement on the driver's transport vehicle licence, certifying completion of the training course prescribed under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, constitutes a fundamental breach of the India Law Library Docid # 2424374
(157) SAKSHI ARHA Vs. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Service Law — Recruitment — Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Reservation — OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS — Cut-off Date for Eligibility — Certificate Validity — The eligibility of a candidate claiming reservation benefits under categories like Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [OBC-NCL], Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [MBC-NCL], or Economically Weaker Section [EWS], whose status is dynamic and dependent on current socio-economic criteria, must be established as existing on the cu India Law Library Docid # 2424375
(158) ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91 & 92 — Interpretation of Written Agreements (Deeds) — Exclusion of Oral Evidence — The terms of a written contract, grant, or disposition of property must primarily be ascertained from the document itself — Oral evidence contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of such a written instrument is inadmissible between the parties, unless the situation falls within the specific exceptions provided in the Provisos to S. 92 (such as fraud, mistake India Law Library Docid # 2424376
(159) STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17 (Second Proviso) & Section 13(1)(b) — Investigation of Disproportionate Assets — Order of Superintendent of Police — Preliminary Enquiry — The second proviso to Section 17 mandates that an investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(b) (disproportionate assets) requires an order from a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) — However, this provision does not explicitly require the SP to conduct a separate prelimina India Law Library Docid # 2424377
(160) KARAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (as amended by Act of 2012) — Section 9 — Sentence for failure to surrender after parole — Applicability of Amendment Act, 2012 — Retrospectivity — The amendment to S. 9 by the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2012 (w.e.f. 01.10.2012), which introduced a minimum sentence of two years, is not applicable retrospectively — Where the offence of failing to surrender after parole was committed (17.06.2010) an India Law Library Docid # 2424447