(681) 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
(682) 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
(683) 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
(684) 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
(685) 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
(686) 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
(687) 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
(688) 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
(689) SHRI ARJUN PRASAD DUBEY Vs. SUB REGISTRAR SAHKARI SAMITIYA[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Review Petition — Grounds for Review — Limitation — Consumer Protection — Where Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission held claim barred by limitation, and High Court dismissed the initial writ petition challenging these orders — Review sought on grounds related to cause of action and incorrect application of limitation period — These grounds pertain to the merits of the previous decision and do not constitute errors apparent on the face of record — Review is not an appeal in India Law Library Docid # 2425673
(690) SANJAY COLARO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025 Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 279 — Rash driving or riding on a public way — Criminal negligence — Accused alleged to have driven motorcar in a rash and negligent manner, causing fatal accident to pedestrian — Conviction upheld by trial court, appellate court, and high court India Law Library Docid # 2425737
(691) NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. ANITA DEVI AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Temporary Injunction — Grant of status quo — Suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed — Alleged prior agreement to sell with plaintiff — Subsequent registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 (appellant) who paid full consideration, largely through banking channels — Suit land encumbered by bank loan to vendor (defendant No. 1 India Law Library Docid # 2425895
(692) SOMA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Sections 40, 41, 72, 77 — Will — Registration Refusal — Suit for Declaration of Validity and Registrability — Challenge to refusal of registration of Will by Sub-Registrar and Registrar — Dismissal of suit and subsequent appeal by Civil Courts — Plea of multiple Wills executed by testator — Appellants claiming under a later unregistered Will — Respondents claiming under an earlier registered Will that explicitly revoked India Law Library Docid # 2425896
(693) MANJUSHA NARWAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Sections 145(1)(c), 147, 148 — Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 — Rule 142(1)(a) — Suspension of Gram Panchayat Pradhan — Availability of appellate and revisional remedies under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act — Petitioner challenging suspension order without exhausting these remedies — Writ petition held not maintainable. India Law Library Docid # 2425897
(694) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. AMAR SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Land Acquisition — Authority to initiate proceedings — Delay and Laches — Consent — Compensation — State’s action of utilizing private land for road construction without following due process of law and without paying compensation is arbitrary and unconstitutional. India Law Library Docid # 2425898
(695) PARTHRAJSINH BALVANSINH JETHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Tender — Earnest Money Deposit — Forfeiture — Contractual terms — When tender terms explicitly allow forfeiture of earnest money deposit for non-compliance with conditions, such as failure to provide security deposit or execute agreement after bid acceptance, forfeiture is permissible even without a concluded formal contract — Failure to execute agreement after acceptance of offer and deposit of security deposit constitutes breach of tender terms justifying forfeiture of earnest money deposit India Law Library Docid # 2426099
(696) NIRANJAN VASUDEV VYAS AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Gujarat Land Revenue Code — Section 65B — Non-Agricultural Use Permission — Collector’s Power — Scope of Inquiry — Administrator’s discretion — Pendency of tenancy proceedings or litigation not, in itself, a valid ground for refusing NA permission — Collector’s power under Section 65 is administrative, not adjudicatory of title disputes — Collector must consider NA application based on law and relevant factors, not irrelevant considerations like pending civil suits if no injunction is in force — India Law Library Docid # 2426100
(697) KRISHNA PATOWARY AND ANOTHER Vs. GOPI DAS AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100(4) — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Plaintiff claimed title to suit land via registered sale deed from defendants 1-4, who inherited it — Defendants 5 and 6 (appellants) contested saleability, claiming prior unregistered transfer to them from the predecessor of defendants 1-4 — Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found plaintiff had title India Law Library Docid # 2426210
(698) ABDULKADAR MOHMEDUSMAN IDARIYA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Claim — Loss due to Communal Violence — Assessment of Loss — State Commission’s Findings — Cash Transactions — The State Commission correctly rejected cash purchases exceeding Rs. 20,000/- for indemnity purposes, as such transactions should ideally be witnessed through cheques India Law Library Docid # 2427250
(699) SHIVANI ATAL KAPUR Vs. ICICI BANK AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a) — Deficiency in Service — Home Loan — Allegation of wrongful declaration as willful defaulter — Complainant took a home loan from OP-1 (Bank) and cancelled the property purchase from OP-2 (builder) — Complainant defaulted on 19 EMIs — Bank declared the loan as an NPA and invoked SARFAESI Act, publishing a default notice in a newspaper after an initial notice was undeliverable due to an unverified address change request from the complainant — Complain India Law Library Docid # 2427251
(700) MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope and Limitations — The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and should be exercised only when the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The National Commission India Law Library Docid # 2427252