ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(521) DEVENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 135 & Section 149 — Offences by Companies — Procedure for Prosecution — Vicarious Liability — Where an offence under the Electricity Act, 2003, such as theft of electricity under Section 135, is alleged to have been committed by a ‘company’ [which, as per Explanation (a) to Section 149, includes a body corporate, firm, or other association of individuals, like an educational institution run by a Committee of Management], the prosecution of individuals associated w
India Law Library Docid # 2425346

(522) JODHPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED Vs. SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Sections 22A, 22B, 22C — Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) — Public Utility Service — Tortious Claim — The jurisdiction conferred upon a Permanent Lok Adalat under Chapter VI-A is limited to disputes concerning “public utility services” enumerated in Section 22A(b) or notified thereunder — The phrase “in respect of one or more public utility services” in Section 22B must be interpreted to mean disputes relating to or connected with the
India Law Library Docid # 2425369

(523) KIRAN YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 04-04-2025
Service Law — Eligibility — Cut-off Date — Qualification acquired after re-evaluation — Relation Back — The result of a qualifying examination declared after a re-evaluation process does not relate back to the date of the original declaration of results for the purpose of determining eligibility for a post — A candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification on or before the cut-off date (the date of the written examination or the last date for submission of applications as specifi
India Law Library Docid # 2425427

(524) BANK OF BARODA, CORPORATE BODY, REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANDBI, BARODA Vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PHARMECEUTICALS CO. AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 04-04-2025
Banking Law — Loan Recovery — Bill Purchase Facility — Margin Money — Counter-claim — In a suit for recovery filed by a bank based on a bill purchase credit facility, where the bank had advanced 75% of the bill amount and retained 25% as margin money, the trial court’s decision to partially allow the defendants’ counter-claim for the margin money and deduct it from the due amount, while also granting interest on the principal sum, was upheld, finding no error in the trial court’s appreciation of
India Law Library Docid # 2425428

(525) NINE 2 NINE SUPER MARKET Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Insurance Law — Shopkeepers Insurance Policy — Interpretation — Coverage — Subsidence/Impact Damage — Loss or damage caused to an insured shop due to collapse resulting from excavation work in an adjoining plot falls within the scope of insured perils defined as “Subsidence and Landslide (including Rockslide) damage” [Clause (e)] and/or “Impact damage” [Clause (g)] under Section I of the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy.
India Law Library Docid # 2425408

(526) SUGAM BIO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Sales Tax — Interpretation of Taxing Statutes — Strict Interpretation — Taxing statutes, including exemption notifications, must be interpreted strictly — The language used must be given its plain meaning, and interpretations cannot be based on assumptions, intendment, or equity — If the language is clear, effect must be given to it, even if it leads to hardship or allows a taxpayer to escape liability.
India Law Library Docid # 2425409

(527) ARPIT KUMAR BHANA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 04-04-2025
Constitution of India, Article 226 — Writ Petition — Maintainability — Respondent No. 3 (Institute of Banking Personnel Selection) — Whether ‘State’ under Article 12 — Where Respondent No. 3, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), contended it was wrongly impleaded as it is a public trust and registered society, not performing any public function, and thus not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, the Court, relying on Mohan Laxman Gamare Vs. IBPS, found force in the submis
India Law Library Docid # 2425457

(528) RAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. SAI NATH ROLLER AND FLOOR MILLS PVT. LTD. SOLAPUR MAHARASHTRA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) — Sections 138 & 141 — Offence by Company — Rejection of Complaint — Non-joinder of Directors/Responsible Persons and Lack of Specific Averments — Where a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed impleading only the company as an accused, without naming any Director, Manager, or Partner, and without specific averments as to who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time
India Law Library Docid # 2425458

(529) SMT. SAPNA JHUNJHUNWALA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Maintainability — Service Matters — Writ Petition No.6345/2020, filed as a PIL challenging aspects of recruitment to Higher Judicial Services and seeking implementation of Supreme Court judgments concerning service conditions, was held to be not maintainable — The Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents including Dr. Duryodhan Sahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Ayaaubkhan
India Law Library Docid # 2425459

(530) SAVITA MEHTO Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-04-2025
Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Deceased Employee — Group-D (Head Constable) — Absence of Misrepresentation — The permissibility of recovering alleged excess salary paid to a deceased Head Constable (classified as a Group-D employee for the purpose of recovery principles) from his death benefits, where such excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation or fraud on
India Law Library Docid # 2425460

(531) DHARMENDRA GAUTAM Vs. SMT. SHASHIKANTI BHARGAVA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 04-04-2025
Power of Attorney Act, 1882 — Section 2 — Effect of Principal’s Death on Donee’s Authority to Execute Instruments — The execution of an instrument by a donee of a power of attorney, as contemplated by Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, is legally deemed to be an execution by the donor himself — Consequently, upon the death of the donor (principal), the donor is no longer capable of executing any instrument, and resultantly, the donee’s authority to execute such instruments on behalf o
India Law Library Docid # 2425543

(532) UCO BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. VIJAY KUMAR HANDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Pension — Bipartite Settlement (Banking Industry) — UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 22 — Interpretation and Harmonious Construction — Where an employee is subjected to the penalty of "removal from service with superannuation benefits" under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, such employee, if otherwise eligible for pension under the applicable regulations, is entitled to receive pensionary benefits — This interpretation h
India Law Library Docid # 2424239

(533) RAM KISHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS ETC. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 — Market Value Determination — Principle of De-escalation from Subsequent Comparable Award — Where lands acquired under a later notification are proximate, adjoining, and possess similar characteristics and potentiality to lands acquired under an earlier notification for a comparable public purpose (like development of integrated sectors), the compensation determined for the later acquisition can serve as a relevant base value — An appropriate percentage r
India Law Library Docid # 2424240

(534) NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. CLIFFORD D SOUZA ETC.ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) — Section 7 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Applicability — Section 18 (Acknowledgment) — Arrears of Licence Fee/Rent — The Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent/licence fee initiated under Section 7 of the PP Act — Consequently, all provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 18 regarding the effect of acknowledgment in writing, are applicable to such proceedings — The period of limit
India Law Library Docid # 2424241

(535) M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 4 & 12(1) — Calculation of Limitation Period — Exclusion of Date of Receipt & Court Holiday — For calculating the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the ACA, Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act applies, requiring the exclusion of the date on which the party received the arbitral award — Consequently, the period commences from the following day — If the three-month period, so calculated, exp
India Law Library Docid # 2424242

(536) G.C. MANJUNATH AND OTHERS Vs. SEETARAM[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 197 — Karnataka Police Act, 1963 — Section 170 — Sanction for Prosecution — Police Officers — Acts under colour of or in excess of duty — Necessity of Sanction — Prosecution against police officers for offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, or under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority, cannot be entertained without the previous sanction of the appropriate Government — This p
India Law Library Docid # 2424243

(537) STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-04-2025
Service Law — Recruitment — Cancellation of Entire Selection Process — Systemic Fraud and Irregularities — Segregation of Tainted/Untainted Candidates — When a selection process is deeply marred by systemic fraud, large-scale manipulations (such as OMR sheet tampering, rank jumping, illegal appointments beyond panel validity and vacancies, destruction of primary evidence like OMR sheets), and attempted cover-up, undermining its integrity and public confidence, the cancellation of the entire proc
India Law Library Docid # 2424244

(538) SMT. GANGAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — Sections 17, 18, 19 — Land Acquisition — Deletion of Lands between Preliminary and Final Notification — Allegation of Arbitrariness and Discrimination (Article 14) — The exclusion of a substantial portion of land between the preliminary notification and the final notification during acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act does not inherently vitiate the entire process as arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution — Such deletion
India Law Library Docid # 2424343

(539) SRI. MALLAPPA BASANNA NAVALAGUDDA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 03-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Livelihood — Right to Water — Farmers — Irrigation Needs vs. Drinking Water Priority — Duty of State to Balance — While the State has a paramount duty to prioritize and ensure the supply of drinking water to its populace (implicit in Article 21), this duty does not absolve it of its obligation towards farmers whose right to livelihood, also flowing from Article 21, depends heavily on access to irrigation water for their crops — The State is obl
India Law Library Docid # 2424439

(540) V. SANTHAKUMARI, FORMERLY HEAD CLERK Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, MADRAS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Natural Justice — Fair Enquiry — Non-Supply of Documents / Non-listing in Charge Memo — In disciplinary proceedings, failure to list certain documents (like internal communications or CCTV footage) in the annexure to the charge memo does not automatically vitiate the enquiry if the core evidence (CCTV footage) was shown to the delinquent and their counsel, opportunities for cross-examination and adducing defence evidence based on such
India Law Library Docid # 2424456