(341) 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
(342) 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
(343) 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
(344) 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
(345) 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
(346) 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
(347) 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
(348) 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
(349) 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
(350) 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
(351) 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
(352) 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
(353) 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
(354) 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
(355) 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
(356) 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Section 16 — Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 — Front-of-Package Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) / Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) System — Public Interest Litigation — Judicial Directions — In a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for implementation of Front-of-Package Warning Labels, where the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) apprised the Court of the ongoing process involving draft regulations for India Law Library Docid # 2425141
(357) JANARDAN RAY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal — Conviction under Section 302 IPC — Principles for Exercise of Power — The power of an appellate court under Section 389 CrPC to suspend the execution of sentence pending appeal, especially in cases involving conviction for serious offences like murder under Section 302 IPC, must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances after recording reasons in writing. India Law Library Docid # 2425140
(358) PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs. M/S. CHAINRUP SAMPATRAM[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Banking Law — Banker-Customer Relationship — Duty of Care — Negligence & Fraud — A bank owes a duty of care to its customers Gross dereliction of this duty occurs when a bank permits the opening of a current account and the premature discharge/discounting of Fixed Deposits (FDs) in the name of a known partnership firm based on documents purportedly signed by a “proprietor,” without verifying credentials, obtaining proper written instructions, or comparing signatures/seals with available India Law Library Docid # 2425200
(359) RAJESH KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 20 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Bail — Establishing Prima Facie Case for Demand and Acceptance — Bail rejected in a trap case under Section 7 of the PC Act where the Court found a strong prima facie case established based on: (i) pre-trap verification recording, corroborated by independent witnesses identifying the accused’s voice, evidencing demand for illegal gratification; (ii) undisputed acceptance of phenolphthalein-laced currency recovered from th India Law Library Docid # 2425229
(360) COMMANDANT 40TH BATTALION P.A.C. Vs. SITA RAM AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rules 3, 4, 5 — Pleadings — Admissions — Estoppel — A defendant, particularly a State instrumentality, having unequivocally admitted in a written statement in a prior suit concerning the same property that it had “no concern of any kind in respect to the property in question,” and having admitted in the present proceedings (appeal grounds/affidavit) that the property was duly allotted by the government to the plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest, is bound by India Law Library Docid # 2425232