ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(621) SUMAN SHARMA Vs. MAHENDER SHARMA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 340 — Inquiry into Perjury — Expediency in Interest of Justice — For a court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (leading to a complaint for perjury under S. 195), it must form a considered opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to conduct an inquiry — Prosecution for perjury is not mandatory for every incorrect or false statement made in court proceedings.
India Law Library Docid # 2425001

(622) RAJ SINGH Vs. M/S M.R. TRADING CO.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 14 Rule 2 — Preliminary Issue — Scope of — Mixed Questions of Law and Fact — The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC to try an issue as a preliminary issue is limited to pure questions of law relating to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force — The Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue
India Law Library Docid # 2425033

(623) HANS RAJ Vs. SURJEETO DEVI AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional Evidence in Second Appeal — Rejection Criteria — Due Diligence & Essentiality — An application for producing additional evidence at the second appeal stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is liable to be dismissed where the applicant fails to establish that despite due diligence, the evidence, which was within their knowledge, could not be produced before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court — The applicant must provide a plausible ex
India Law Library Docid # 2425034

(624) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RAM SINGH, EX. ASSISTANT LINEMAN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Double Jeopardy — Constitution of India, Art. 20(2) — Subsequent Dismissal based on Criminal Conviction — Imposition of a second, harsher penalty (dismissal from service) based solely on a subsequent criminal conviction, arising from the same incident/conduct for which a final, lesser penalty (stoppage of increments) has already been imposed and accepted following a departmental enquiry, amounts to subjecting the employee to double jeopardy for the same c
India Law Library Docid # 2425035

(625) AMARJIT KAUR Vs. HARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 35, 74, 76, 77, 82 — Proof of Parentage — Public Documents — Admissibility and Evidentiary Value — Documents such as an application for foreign citizenship made by a parent for a minor child explicitly stating parentage (Ex.P1), marriage registration certificates detailing parental lineage (Ex.P2, P7), and passport entries (Ex.P5, P6), when produced in original or as properly admissible copies, are relevant under Section 35 and possess significant evidentiary value
India Law Library Docid # 2425036

(626) SHILA DEVI ALIAS SHEELA DEVI Vs. RAM DATT[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 68, 101 — Proof of Will — Suspicious Circumstances — Onus Probandi — The propounder of a Will bears the onus not only of proving its due execution according to law but also of removing any legitimate suspicion surrounding its execution — Factors such as the execution of the Will shortly before the testator’s death, the presence and active participation of the beneficiary during the execution and registration process, the failure o
India Law Library Docid # 2425037

(627) DILBAGH SINGH Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURU NANAK NATIONAL COLLEGE, NAKODAR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 115 — Estoppel — Acceptance of Consolidated Salary — Ad-hoc/Temporary Employment — An employee appointed on a temporary/ad-hoc basis on a specified consolidated salary, who accepts such salary throughout the tenure of employment without protest or objection, may be estopped from later claiming salary arrears based on parity with regular employees or on the basis of University/Government rules, especially when the terms of appointment letters clearly stipulate payment
India Law Library Docid # 2425088

(628) PRITHI AND OTHERS Vs. SATYA NARAIN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103 — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Burden of Proof — Proof of Possession — In a suit for permanent injunction based on possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defendant’s case — The burden lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish their settled possession over the suit property at the time of filing the suit through cogent and reliable evidence — Contradictory stands taken by the plai
India Law Library Docid # 2425089

(629) SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the heavy burden of establishing a chain of evidence so complete that it is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and points unerringly towards their guilt — Each circumstance must be fully established (“must be” or “should be,” not merely “may be”) — The established facts must exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt o
India Law Library Docid # 2425090

(630) UMA DEY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Law — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Duty of Prosecution — Circumstantial Evidence — The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt — In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, excluding any hypothesis consistent with their innocence — Poor investigation does not absolve the prosecution of t
India Law Library Docid # 2425208

(631) RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304B —Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113-B — Dowry Death — Pre-requisites for Presumption — The presumption as to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is contingent upon the prosecution first establishing the foundational ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC — Crucially, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that “soon before her death,” the deceased woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative “for,
India Law Library Docid # 2425228

(632) SATYENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 389(1) — Suspension of Sentence and Bail Pending Appeal — Circumstantial Evidence — Prima Facie Assessment — In an appeal against conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence (Sections 302/201 IPC), the High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail pending appeal upon finding prima facie serious doubts regarding the prosecution case — This assessment was based on several factors including: (i) inconclusive and contradictory medical evidence rega
India Law Library Docid # 2425233

(633) RAMJI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [‘Ceiling Act’] — Sections 10(3), 10(5), 10(6) & Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [‘Repeal Act’] — Sections 3 & 4 — Abatement of Proceedings — Requirement of Actual Physical Possession — For ceiling proceedings initiated under the Ceiling Act, 1976 to be saved from abatement under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the State Government or the competent authority must have taken actual physical possession (de facto possession) of t
India Law Library Docid # 2425348

(634) RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAREILLY AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Telegraph Act, 1885 — Sections 10(d), 16(3) & 18(2) — Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 164 — Compensation for Transmission Lines — Adjudicating Authority — District Judge vs. District Magistrate — Where a licensee (like PGCIL, exercising powers under S. 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Telegraph Act, 1885) erects electricity transmission lines/towers on private land, any dispute arising concerning the sufficiency or adequacy of compensation payable under Section 10(d) of the Telegra
India Law Library Docid # 2425349

(635) RAVI KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Service Law — Appointment — Denial due to Pending Criminal Case — Non-Disclosure — Alleged non-disclosure of a pending criminal case cannot be held against a candidate if the prescribed application proforma did not mandate such disclosure — The principle requires a case-specific analysis, and non-disclosure is not automatically fatal, especially where the form lacks clarity or a candidate acts under a bona fide dilemma.
India Law Library Docid # 2425361

(636) SAYAR DEVI SPOUSE/O HUKMARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Service Law — Recruitment — Interpretation of Advertisement Clause — Age Relaxation — Carry Forward of Applications — Where a fresh recruitment advertisement explicitly states in a clause (Clause 8) that applications submitted in response to previously cancelled advertisements will be included in the new process and considered within the prescribed age limit, such clause applies to all candidates who applied under the previous
India Law Library Docid # 2425362

(637) KHETAWAT FINANCIAL RESOURCE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KHETA RAM AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule — Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator — Unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by one party, as per an agreement clause nominating the said party (‘Lander’) to appoint, is impermissible and de hors Section 12(5) of the Act — An award passed by such unilaterally appointed arbitrator is void and unenforceable.
India Law Library Docid # 2425363

(638) BARKATULLA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(oo), 25F — Retrenchment — Continuous Service (240 days) — The finding by a Labour Tribunal/Court regarding the completion or non-completion of 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year preceding retrenchment is a finding of fact, generally not interfered with by the High Court under Article 226/227 unless
India Law Library Docid # 2425364

(639) RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW DIVISION, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 02-04-2025
Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Discretionary Remedy — Non-interference when Substantial Justice Done or Illegality Revived — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable — The Court is not bound to interfere and quash an order, even if it suffers from technical flaws, procedural irregularities, jurisdictional errors, or is barred by limitation or res judicata, if substantial justice appears to have been done, or if quashing the im
India Law Library Docid # 2425388

(640) KAMAL KUMAR BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 02-04-2025
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 21 — Limitation — Adjudication on merits after dismissal on limitation — Propriety — Jurisdiction and limitation are threshold issues for availing a remedy before a forum — Once an Original Application (O.A.) is dismissed as being barred by limitation, the tribunal is ousted of jurisdiction to decide the O.A. on merits — If the application is not admitted due to being beyond limitation and no prayer for condonation is made or granted, the tribunal has
India Law Library Docid # 2425425