ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(501) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND OTHERS Vs. SURESH MATHEW AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025
Government Contracts & Tenders — Judicial Review — Scope of Interference: The power of judicial review in matters relating to government tenders and contracts is circumscribed — Courts should exercise restraint and interfere only if the process adopted or decision made by the authority is vitiated by mala fides, intended to favour someone, or is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached it, or if public inte
India Law Library Docid # 2425094

(502) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SURENDRA PATWA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025
Banking Law — RBI Master Directions on Frauds — Administrative Action vs. Criminal Proceedings — An administrative action taken by banks under the RBI’s Master Directions (dated 01.07.2016) to classify a borrower’s account as fraudulent stands on a different footing from criminal proceedings (like registration of FIR and subsequent investigation by CBI/Police) initiated based on the detection of fraudulent activity — The former falls within the regulatory domain of the RBI and banks, while the l
India Law Library Docid # 2425095

(503) RAJAT GAERA Vs. TARUN RAWAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025
Practice and Procedure — Expeditious Disposal — Stay of Trial Proceedings by High Court — Landlord-Tenant Disputes — Where the High Court has stayed the trial or original proceedings in cases, particularly those pending between landlord and tenant, such cases must be heard expeditiously — A stay of the trial inevitably leads to delay in the conclusion of the trial and the entire proceedings thereafter — High Courts should endeavor to dispose of those cases where trial has been stayed by
India Law Library Docid # 2425103

(504) SAMAR DEBANGSI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354 & 376 read with 511 — Outraging Modesty & Attempt to Commit Rape — Proof and Appreciation of Evidence — Appeal against conviction under Ss. 354 & 376/511 IPC — Court analysed evidence of prosecutrix (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses regarding the incident in a sugarcane field — Considered issues of delay in FIR, inconsistencies between FIR and deposition, non-exhibition of injury report, non-seizure of clothes by IO, and alleged land dispute motive
India Law Library Docid # 2425160

(505) GOVINDA KRISHNA GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SIBA PADA DAS AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 58(c) — Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition of Repurchase — Distinction — A transaction where a sale deed is executed and a separate, contemporaneous agreement for reconveyance is executed between the parties does not constitute a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the TPA, especially in view of the Proviso added by Act 20 of 1929 which requires the condition of repurchase to be embodied in the same document that effects
India Law Library Docid # 2425161

(506) SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Ingredients — Course of Conduct — Proximate Cause — To establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an active act or illegal omission which instigated the deceased or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide — A continuous course of conduct involving mental and physical torture, cruelty, and harassment (in this case, related to
India Law Library Docid # 2425134

(507) M/S SRI VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025
Tender Law — Interpretation of Conditions — Income Tax Return — “Previous Financial Year” — Due Date for Filing — Section 44AB, Income Tax Act, 1961 — Where a tender notice requires submission of the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the “previous financial year” and the bid submission deadline falls before the statutory due date for filing the ITR for the immediately preceding financial year (especially for assesses subject to tax audit under Section 44AB of the IT Act, 1961, considering applicable e
India Law Library Docid # 2425135

(508) MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 39(6) — Suspension of Member/Chairperson — Grounds and Judicial Review — Section 39(6) empowers the State Government to suspend a member (including a Chairperson) against whom proceedings for removal under Section 39 have commenced, pending conclusion of the inquiry — While suspension is not a penalty and is normally ordered when allegations of misconduct or corruption are under scrutiny, the power, especially concerning elected public representatives
India Law Library Docid # 2425476

(509) DR. DEVA RAM SHIVRAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16, 21 and 41 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 2(h), 2(r), 2(s), 3, 20, 21 — Discrimination in Public Employment — Non-Benchmark Disability — Medical Unfitness for one Cadre but Fitness for Similar Cadre — Denying a meritorious candidate appointment to a preferred non-technical service cadre (like Rajasthan Administrative Service - RAS) solely on grounds of a visual impairment (Congenital Nystagmus) that does not meet the 40% benchma
India Law Library Docid # 2425477

(510) PHOOL CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Suit Barred by Limitation — Oral Agreement — A suit based on an alleged oral agreement (for sale of property) entered into several years prior (in this case, an agreement of 1996 for which a suit was filed in 2023) is prima facie barred by limitation — An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of such a plaint on the ground of limitation should be allowed if the plaint, on its face, discloses that the suit is time-
India Law Library Docid # 2425478

(511) NIRANJAN SINGH KAURAV Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Acquittal in Criminal Trial on Same Facts — Effect on Disciplinary Proceedings — When departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on an identical and similar set of facts, charges, evidence, and witnesses, and the employee is honorably acquitted in the criminal trial after a full contest, the findings of guilt in the departmental enquiry are not sustainable — If the star witness for the prosecution (complainant in a trap case) deposes in the c
India Law Library Docid # 2425541

(512) KAMLABAI Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-04-2025
M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 — Rule 3 — Presentation of Election Petition — Mandatory Requirements — Rule 3 mandates that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer either by the person making the petition or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the petitioner — Presentation by an advocate under a general vakalatnama without specific written authorization to present the petition is not a
India Law Library Docid # 2425542

(513) MANOHAR LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Electricity Act, 1910 — Section 26(6) — Dispute regarding correctness of meter — Estimation of energy supplied — Penalty for fake meter seals — Where an electricity meter was found intact in a prior inspection (26.11.1985) but its seals were allegedly found fake in a subsequent inspection (13.05.1986), the liability for penalty, if any, under Section 26(6) of the Act should be determined by considering the default period at best from the date of the last correct inspection to the date of the fre
India Law Library Docid # 2425552

(514) BHAGAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Applicability to Subsequent Suit after Dismissal of Writ Petition involving same Land and Parties — Where a plaintiff, after having his writ petition (CWP-2384-1971) concerning rights over evacuee land dismissed by the High Court, files a subsequent civil suit pertaining to the same land in dispute, the suit is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata, especially when the plaintiff was a party (petitioner No.6) to the said writ pet
India Law Library Docid # 2425553

(515) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Death Case — Assessment — Future Prospects — Deceased aged 36 years, engaged in agricultural pursuit — Insurance company appealed against quantum — Tribunal added 50% for future prospects — Held, following National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, for a deceased aged 36 years, future prospects should be 40% instead of 50%.
India Law Library Docid # 2425554

(516) NAVRAJ KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. SUNNY MASIH OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Enhancement — Just Compensation — Appeal for enhancement dismissed. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 74,93,842/-. The deceased, a Head Constable aged 45.5 years, had a net monthly income of Rs. 44,205/- (annual Rs. 5,30,465/-) after deduction of income tax. 30% future prospects were added — After 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14, loss of dependency was Rs. 72,40,842/- — Conventional heads were also
India Law Library Docid # 2425555

(517) HARISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Criminal Procedure — Interference by Executive in Judicial Process — Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) ordering fresh medical board for re-examination of injuries in a sub judice criminal case pending trial before Sessions Court — Validity — Separation of Powers — Rule of Law — Due Process — Petition under Section 528 BNSS against SDM (Respondent No.3) for interfering in a sub judice matter arising from an FIR where charges including Section 307 IPC had been framed and a prior application
India Law Library Docid # 2425598

(518) LUCKY KUMAR Vs. SUSHMA ARYA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Concurrent findings of conviction — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope of interference — When there are concurrent findings of conviction by two courts, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not supposed to act as an appellate court and the scope of interference is extremely low — The object of revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law, not to dwell at len
India Law Library Docid # 2425599

(519) JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Punjab Excise Act (1 of 1914) — Section 61(i)(c) — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Sections 3 and 4 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 360 and 361 — Release on probation — Petitioner convicted under Punjab Excise Act — Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has family responsibilities, faced trial for over 24 years, and has undergone a substantial part of the sentence — Considering these factors and the object of probation to reform first-time offenders, the sentence is modified to r
India Law Library Docid # 2425600

(520) KIRAN SARANGAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S ALLROUND SPORTING BALLS AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by Appellate Court — Conditions for — Unwarranted remand — The First Appellate Court can remit a matter back to the trial court only after setting aside the trial court’s judgment on merits and concluding that a re-trial is necessary, as mandated by Order 41 Rule 23A — Appellate courts should be circumspect in ordering remands, especially when the case is not covered by Rules 23, 23A, or 25, to avoid giving litigation an undeser
India Law Library Docid # 2425601