(201) SARABJIT SINGH @ JATT @ AMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Bail in Commercial Quantity Case — Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration — Prolonged pre-trial incarceration generally militates against the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution — In such circumstances, the conditional liberty of the accused may override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS India Law Library Docid # 2425083
(202) M/S LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S KRISTAN AUTO[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 11 Rules 1(1), 1(7)(c)(i), 1(10) — Disclosure of Documents — Use Solely for Cross-Examination — Requirement of Leave — Under the stringent disclosure regime mandated by Order 11 CPC for Commercial Courts, a defendant is required by Rule 1(1) to file a list and photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control, or custody pertaining to the suit along with the written statement or counterclaim — While Order 11 Rule India Law Library Docid # 2425118
(203) KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHBIR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 — Section 5(b) — ‘Waste Land’ — Inclusion of ‘Sailab’ Land — Effect of Reclamation by Vendee — Land consistently recorded in revenue records as ‘Sailab’ (flooded or kept moist by river action), even if classified as cultivable waste land under administrative or legal frameworks (including interpretations based on the Punjab Land Record Manual, National Wasteland Development Board definitions, and Punjab Land Revenue Act provisions), falls within the ambit of the Expl India Law Library Docid # 2425119
(204) SRI SRI ISWAR RAMESWARSHIB THAKUR Vs. NIRMAL KANTI GANGULY AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 114 Ill.(g) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O. III Rr. 1, 2 — Evidence by Power of Attorney (POA) Holder — Scope and Admissibility — Adverse Inference — A POA holder is empowered to 'act' on behalf of the principal, which includes acts done in exercise of the power granted, but does not extend to deposing in place of the principal on matters within the principal's exclusive personal knowledge — A POA holder cannot testify about the principal's state of mind, or when and ho India Law Library Docid # 2425163
(205) NISHA KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 190(1)(b) — Scope of Magistrate’s Power — Magistrate taking cognizance based on a police report is not bound by the IO’s opinion or the sections mentioned in the chargesheet — The Magistrate can independently apply mind to the material filed with the report and take cognizance of any offence(s) disclosed therein against any person(s) indicated, even if not charge-sheeted or India Law Library Docid # 2425276
(206) RAM BARAN Vs. SHEETLA PRASAD YADAV AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled law India Law Library Docid # 2425277
(207) STATE OF UP AND OTHERS Vs. MAHAVEER SINGH AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 UP Regularization Rules — Regularization — Continuous Service — Long breaks in service, unless proven to be artificial breaks caused by the employer, disqualify a person from consideration under the regularization rules requiring continuous work India Law Library Docid # 2425278
(208) ROOPALI RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15 and 16 — Compassionate Appointment & Discrimination — Excluding married daughters from eligibility for compassionate appointment while including married sons, based solely on marital status, constitutes impermissible discrimination based on sex and violates fundamental rights India Law Library Docid # 2425305
(209) ANKITA MATHUR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Prosecution Sanction — Application of Mind: The grant of sanction for prosecution requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the facts of the case and the material collected during investigation to determine if a prima facie case is made out warranting prosecution — This involves considering relevant aspects like demand, acceptance, and recovery in India Law Library Docid # 2425382
(210) SMT. SANGEETA JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) — Sections 64, 74 — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Alternative Efficacious Remedy — Writ Jurisdiction — The Act of 2013 constitutes a complete code providing specific statutory remedies for persons aggrieved by a Collector’s award determining compensation — Aggrieved persons can seek a reference to the appropriate Authority under Section 64 regarding India Law Library Docid # 2425383
(211) SMT. KRISHNA SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. GAYATRI SHARMA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 9 & Section 54 — Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Composite Suit for Partition — Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Property — In a composite suit filed for partition of properties including both non-agricultural immovable property and agricultural land, the Civil Court possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and determine the shares of the parties with respect to the agricultural land as well — It is an error for the trial court to decline jurisdicti India Law Library Docid # 2425436
(212) M/S. SHREE MADAN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. M/S. MADAN ENGINEERING WORKS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) — Jurisdiction — Commercial Dispute — Trademark Infringement between Family Members — A suit seeking permanent injunction alleging infringement of a registered trademark and unfair trade practice constitutes a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Act, specifically relating to intellectual property rights — The Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, even if the dispute arises between family India Law Library Docid # 2425437
(213) PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ALWAR (RAJASTHAN) AND OTHERS Vs. DEVI SAHAI SAINI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(oo) and Section 25-F — Retrenchment — Termination due to closure of Scheme/Project — Applicability — Where a workman is engaged on a contractual basis specifically under a time-bound Scheme or Project floated by the Government (the Community Polytechnic Scheme by HRD, Govt. of India), and the services are terminated solely as a consequence of the closure of the said Scheme/Project by a competent government order, such termination does not constitute ‘ret India Law Library Docid # 2425438
(214) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. BRIGADIER MAHARAJA SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 151, Order 41 Rule 19 — Recall of Order — Non-compliance with Conditional Restoration Order — Deposition of Costs — Where an appeal, previously dismissed for default, is ordered to be restored subject to the condition precedent of depositing costs within a specified time, and the appellant fails to deposit the costs within that period, the restoration order does not take effect — A subsequent order noting the non-deposition and observing that no further order India Law Library Docid # 2425439
(215) RAMLAL JHARIYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 M.P. Excise Act, 1915 — Section 47-A — Constitutionality — Ultra Vires Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A — Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which confers authority on the Collector to pass orders for confiscation of vehicles/articles used in excise offences even during the pendency of criminal trial, is declared ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) and 300-A (persons not to be deprived of property save by authority India Law Library Docid # 2425527
(216) SURAJ JATAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Burden of Proving Fact Especially within Knowledge — Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of a person upon that person, is an exception to the general rule (Section 101) that the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution — Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt — It applies when the prosecution India Law Library Docid # 2425528
(217) M.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. FAKIR CHAND[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 21-04-2025 M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Section 12(1)(a), (c), (n) — Eviction Decreed — Ownership for these grounds not mandatory — For seeking eviction under Sections 12(1)(a) (arrears of rent), 12(1)(c) (denial of title), and 12(1)(n) (bonafide need for construction on open land) of the Act, 1961, it is not mandatory for the plaintiff to prove absolute ownership of the accommodation — The landlord-tenant relationship is sufficient — The phrase “if he is the owner thereof” is used only in Sectio India Law Library Docid # 2425529
(218) SADASHIV AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHUNATH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law/Perversity — A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is entertainable only if it involves a substantial question of law — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse, i e., based on no evidence, assumptions, conjectures, or wrong legal tests — Perversity itself can be a substantial India Law Library Docid # 2425530
(219) MS. GOLDEN TERRACE APARTMENT PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH PARTNER MAHAVIR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 21-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. / Equivalent in BNSS — Magistrate’s Discretion to Order Police Investigation — While Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. grants discretion to the Magistrate to order a police investigation or proceed with the case as a complaint case, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily — Where a complaint prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the facts India Law Library Docid # 2425531
(220) MOHD. KASIM USMANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 18-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 145 and Civil Suit — Parallel proceedings under Section 145 CrPC should not continue when a civil suit concerning title and possession of the same property is pending, where the civil court can grant interim protection and its orders are binding (Para 21, 22) India Law Library Docid # 2425306