India Law Library

User not Logged..

Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer

Latest Cases

First
«
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
»
Last

(181) IMRAN HUMAYUN CHANDIWALA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-12-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 55(5) — Cancellation of Certificate of Registration — Grounds for cancellation — Registration obtained on basis of false documents or misrepresentation of facts — Nissan car fraudulently imported and initially registered in name of third party using forged Bill of Entry to evade customs duty — Subsequent registration of car in name of Petitioner (purchaser) — Original
India Law Library Docid # 2436986

(182) M/S. BELLA VISTA DRYCLEANERS Vs. VISHWANATH KANOJIA, AKHIL BHARTIYA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-12-2025
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 36(3) and 36(4) — Representation by legal practitioner before Labour Court — Scope and interpretation — Section 36(3) imposes a complete bar on representation by a legal practitioner in conciliation proceedings or proceedings before a Labour Court/Tribunal, but Section 36(4) provides an exception allowing representation before a Labour Court/Tribunal with (i)
India Law Library Docid # 2436988

(183) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SANKET DATTATRAYA MISTRI[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-12-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident Claim — Negligence — Burden of Proof — Preponderance of Probabilities — The burden of establishing that an accident took place due to the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver (ST bus in this case) is discharged by the claimant on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, supported by evidence like the spot panchnama and FIR statements of co-passengers.
India Law Library Docid # 2436989

(184) PRAVIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 02-12-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Principles — The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings when the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or where the proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice — Power should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
India Law Library Docid # 2437109

(185) CHANDAN PASI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF THE BIHAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-12-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable
India Law Library Docid # 2436114

(186) TENNETI MEENAKSHI RAJASEKHAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — Sections 452(1) and 461(1) — Unauthorized Construction — Complaint by neighbor — Deviations from Sanctioned Plan — Compounding and Regularization — Where construction deviations are claimed to be minor (less than 10% of constructed area) and within permissible limits for compounding under GOMs.No.119, the authorities must first determine the extent of deviation before ordering demolition — Petitioners (builders)
India Law Library Docid # 2436118

(187) ABDUL AZIZ PEER Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 01-12-2025
Writ Petition — Quashing of Administrative Order — Challenge to Order of Deputy Commissioner directing seizure of all illegal Rice Husking Machines, Bandsaw and Tractor Based Machines — Petitioner, operating a Movable Tractor Mounted Rice Husking Machine, claimed order was without jurisdiction and interfered with his right to trade — Petitioner relied on NOCs/permissions from State Pollution Control Board and
India Law Library Docid # 2436236

(188) M/S JEEWAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-12-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 226, 245(1), 246(3) — Seventh Schedule, List II, Item 28 — Constitutional validity of Statute — Challenge to Section 6 of The Gwalior Vyapar Mela Pradhikaran Adhiniyam, 1996 — Grounds for striking down legislative enactment — A legislative enactment can be struck down only on two grounds: (i) lack of legislative competence, or (ii) violation or
India Law Library Docid # 2436292

(189) VICTIM X Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-12-2025
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 — Rule 12(4) and Annexure-I — Compensation/Relief Amount to Victim — Entitlement — Victim turning hostile resulting in acquittal of accused — Where the victim (petitioner), alleging offences including gang rape (Section 376-D
India Law Library Docid # 2436291

(190) RANVIR SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Service Law — Compulsory Retirement — Challenge to Guidelines/G.O. dated 20.02.2002 — Financial Handbook, Vol. II-IV, Rule 56 — Rule 56 empowers the appointing authority to compulsorily retire a government servant at or above 50 years of age — G.O. dated 20.02.2002 prescribes the constitution of a Screening Committee, including the appointing authority as Chairperson, to aid the decision-making process — The G.O. merely provides a procedural mechanism to ensure
India Law Library Docid # 2436519

(191) BALMER LAWRIE VAN LEER LTD Vs. SUNIL KUMAR PRAJAPATI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Industrial Dispute — Quashing of Reference Order — Scope of Writ Jurisdiction — A reference order made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being an administrative act, should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is patently absurd or without any factual foundation — Disputed questions of fact and
India Law Library Docid # 2436520

(192) MAHESH SAH AND ANOTHER Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Mutation Proceedings — Scope of Interference — Writ Petition challenging orders of Tehsildar and Commissioner in mutation proceedings dismissed as not maintainable under Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction is only attracted in cases of total absence of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice — In present case,
India Law Library Docid # 2436521

(193) ANAND SINGH Vs. CHAMPA DEVI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) — Divorce — Mental Cruelty post-Compromise — Parties entered into a compromise in 2017 after a previous divorce petition was filed, agreeing to separate residence and maintenance — Respondent's subsequent conduct, including repeatedly visiting the husband's workplace (restaurant) and using abusive/insulting language in
India Law Library Docid # 2436522

(194) TANVI AND ANOTHER Vs. ABHINEET[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — Application for registration of FIR — Discretion of Magistrate — When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if facts disclose a cognizable offence; the Magistrate has discretion — If the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is justified in forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) as an alternative to taking cognizance, especially when such a
India Law Library Docid # 2436923

(195) SUMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. MEENAKSHI AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Enquiry — Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered when deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — The court cannot examine evidence or the merits of the controversy, nor consider submissions made in the written statement or other materials provided by the defendant.
India Law Library Docid # 2436921

(196) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Suit was decreed ex-parte against the State (Petitioners) on 21.01.2017 — Petitioners opted to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was ultimately dismissed on 13.09.2019 by the High Court in revision, upholding the ex-parte judgment — Petitioners subsequently filed an appeal against the original judgment on 14.10.2021, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay — Limitation for appeal started either from
India Law Library Docid # 2436922

(197) NARENDRA RAMPRAKASH PODAR AND OTHERS Vs. PRAGNESH NARAYAN PODAR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) — Section 22 — Change Report — Enquiry requirement — Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) — Change Report regarding deletion of one Trustee (due to medical incapacity) and appointment of a new Trustee, and change of Trust address — ACC allowed the Change Report without recording reasons and without a detailed inquiry as mandated by Section 22
India Law Library Docid # 2436990

(198) SHRI. RAMUGHRAHA RAMCHARITA TIWARI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HIERS) Vs. ALAKNANDA GOPALKRISHNA BADALE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 115 — Revision Application — Scope of Judicial Review — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 is limited; it is not expected to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its findings for those of the Appellate Court unless the findings are perverse.
India Law Library Docid # 2436991

(199) NISHANT Vs. ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025
Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66F — Punishment for cyber terrorism — Mens Rea — Essential ingredient for conviction under Section 66F(1)(A) and (1)(B) is "intent to threaten the unity" or "knowingly or intentionally" obtaining access to restricted information — Prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea, especially since the alleged copying of data occurred years before the communication with foreign
India Law Library Docid # 2437108

(200) PARDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 29-11-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 439 (analogous) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 201, 324, 325 — Arms Act — Sections 25, 27, 30 — Regular Bail — Murder — Unlawful Assembly — Vicarious Liability — Petitioner accused of forming part of unlawful assembly resulting in the death of
India Law Library Docid # 2436924

First
«
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
»
Last