ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(701) PRAVEEN TIWARI Vs. SMT. ANITA UPADHYAY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) — Additional Evidence in Appellate Court — Scholar Register — Paternity Dispute — Adoption Deed — The appellate court commits a material illegality by rejecting an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of a scholar register as additional evidence, where such register mentions the alleged father’s name and is relevant to a paternity dispute, especially when the opposing party has relied on an adoption deed suggesting the appella
India Law Library Docid # 2425447

(702) DHEERAJ SINGH Vs. HEMANT KUMAR SHARMA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-04-2025
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Section 12(1)(f) — Bona Fide Need for Non-Residential Purposes — Advocate’s Office — Whether Commercial Activity — Maintainability of Suit — An office of an Advocate, for the purpose of determining electricity tariff, is not considered a commercial activity if situated in residential premises, but is treated differently if located in a commercial building — However, for the purpose of seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act for establishing an Ad
India Law Library Docid # 2425448

(703) AVINASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-04-2025
Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Anganwadi Worker — Whether Regular Government Employee or Contractual Employee — Applicability of Compassionate Appointment Policy Clause 4(ii) — An Anganwadi worker does not hold a civil post or a statutory post but is appointed under a scheme on an honorarium basis — Their services are not governed by M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and they can be terminated after due opportunity of hearing without a full-fledged
India Law Library Docid # 2425449

(704) M/s. PARSVNATH FILM CITY LTD. Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-03-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Interference — Setting Aside of Award — Public Policy — High Court, exercising powers under S. 37, set aside a well-reasoned arbitral award (which was upheld under S. 34 by the District Court) by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view on contractual breaches — Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, as the arbitral tribunal’s findings on breaches by the respondent (Chandigarh Admini
India Law Library Docid # 2424655

(705) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. RUKMA KESH MISHRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-03-2025
Disciplinary Proceedings — Charge-Sheet — Approval by Competent Authority — Applicable Rules (Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930) — Where the governing service rules (like the 1930 Rules) do not explicitly mandate that the charge-sheet itself must be approved by the Disciplinary or Appointing Authority, separate from the approval for initiating proceedings, the disciplinary action cannot be invalidated solely on this ground, especially when the proposal for initiatin
India Law Library Docid # 2423995

(706) GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-03-2025
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — First Schedule, Chapter 27 — Classification — Mineral Fuels/Oils — High Speed Diesel (HSD) vs. Base Oil — Indian Standard IS 1460:2005 — General Rules for Interpretation (GRI), Rule 1 & Rule 4 ('Most Akin' Test) — The central issue involved the classification of imported goods, contested as either Base Oil (CTH 27101960) or High Speed Diesel (HSD) (CTH 27101930) — HSD classification under Chapter 27, Supplementary Note (e), requires conformity to all parameters specifi
India Law Library Docid # 2423996

(707) IMRAN PRATAPGADHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-03-2025
Constitution of India — Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 21 — Freedom of Speech and Expression — Interpretation of Creative Work (Poem) — Duty of State Machinery — Freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) is a paramount fundamental right, integral to a dignified life under Art. 21 and the foundation of a healthy democracy — The State's law enforcement machinery is obligated under Art. 51-A(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, including the liberty of thought and expression — W
India Law Library Docid # 2423997

(708) ANITA DEVI @ MAYA Vs. OMPRAKASH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103; Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Proof of Will — Burden of Proof — In a suit challenging the validity of a Will, while the initial onus lies on the propounder (defendant asserting the Will) to establish its due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances, the burden to prove that the Will is forged, fabricated, or otherwise invalid rests on the party alleging it (plaintiffs challenging the Will) — Framing an issue regarding the Will's invalidity with t
India Law Library Docid # 2424101

(709) NASEEM UDDIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P) AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Service Law — Transfer — Judicial Review — Scope Limited — Judicial review of transfer orders is confined to narrow grounds, primarily violation of statutory provisions or established mala fides — The burden of proving mala fides rests heavily on the petitioner challenging the transfer — Transfer remains an incident of service, and courts lack the expertise for personnel management across government departments, leaving decisions largely to departmental heads subject to limited
India Law Library Docid # 2424132

(710) OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. VISHNUPRASAD S/O SIDDHANATH (DIED) THROUGH LRS. GANGABAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Concurrent Findings of Fact — A second appeal is maintainable only when a substantial question of law is involved — The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC does not extend to interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, unless such findings are demonstrated to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law.
India Law Library Docid # 2424133

(711) SMT. BINDU PAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH WESTERN RAILWAY[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c), 124-A — Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Section 16 — Bona Fide Passenger — Burden of Proof — Non-recovery of Ticket — In a claim for compensation arising from an untoward incident resulting in the passenger's death and severe mutilation/scattering of body parts, the mere non-recovery of the journey ticket does not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger — Following the principle that the initial burden on the claimant to plead posses
India Law Library Docid # 2424134

(712) SMT. FARJANA BEE AND OTHERS Vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 & 173 — Assessment of Compensation — Notional Income & Future Prospects — In the absence of documentary proof of income of the deceased (aged 46), the assessment for determining just compensation should consider the applicable minimum wages to reflect the deceased's skill level and preserve the family's standard of living — Furthermore, addition for future prospects (25% in this case) is a mandatory component as established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v
India Law Library Docid # 2424135

(713) ANITA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. OMPRAKASH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 14 Rule 1 & Rule 5 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103 — Burden of Proof — Suit Challenging Validity of Will — In a suit where plaintiffs challenge the validity of a registered Will relied upon by the defendant, alleging it to be forged and fabricated, the initial onus to prove due execution and validity rests upon the defendant (propounder) — However, the burden to prove the specific issue framed regarding the Will being forged, fabricated, and invalid (ba
India Law Library Docid # 2424190

(714) MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAVAN VIDYASHRAM, K.M. MUSHI MARG, IN FRONT OF O.T.S, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAMESH CHANDRA JAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL MEENA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Practice and Procedure — Consolidation of Writ Petitions — Where common questions of fact and law are involved in multiple writ petitions challenging similar orders passed by a Tribunal concerning employees of the same institution terminated under similar circumstances, the petitions can be heard together and decided by a common order with the consent of the parties.
India Law Library Docid # 2424220

(715) UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S UDAIPUR ENTERTAINMENT WORLD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Sections 5, 8, 9, 26, 42 & Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code) — Sections 31, 32A, 238 — Jurisdiction of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) — Attachment under PMLA — Serious question arises regarding the jurisdiction of NCLT, a tribunal of limited jurisdiction under the IB Code, to vacate, nullify, or override orders of attachment passed and confirmed by competent authorities under the PMLA, particularly when the PMLA provides a sepa
India Law Library Docid # 2424260

(716) VIVEKANAND SUDHIR PISE @ VICKY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Speedy Trial — Bail on Ground of Long Incarceration — An undertrial accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is infringed by prolonged pre-trial detention — Where an accused has undergone exceptionally long incarceration (over 13 years) and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near foreseeable future due to systemic delays or other factors not attributable solely to the acc
India Law Library Docid # 2424299

(717) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MRS. DOLLY SATISH GANDHI AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 & 168 — Just Compensation — Medical Expenses — Deduction of Mediclaim/Medical Insurance Amount — The amount received by an accident victim/claimant under a private Mediclaim policy or Medical Insurance policy, which is based on a contractual relationship with the insurer involving payment of premiums, is not liable to be deducted from the ‘just compensation’ determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor
India Law Library Docid # 2424277

(718) SMT. NANIBAI WD/O LAXMANRAO NAVKHARE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. VITTHALRAO MAROTRAO NAVKHARE AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 & Order XXI Rule 35 — Partition Suit — Preliminary Decree vs. Final Decree — Executability — A preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, which merely declares the rights and shares of the parties, is not executable under Order XXI Rule 35 or otherwise — Execution proceedings can only be initiated after a final decree is passed, which determines the specific shares by metes and bounds, and such final decree is drawn up and engrossed on stamp pape
India Law Library Docid # 2424304

(719) SANDIP ANIRUDDH JADHAV AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 — Section 50-B — Transfer of Protected Tenant Land — Prior Sanction Mandatory — Post Facto Sanction Impermissible — Invalidity of Transfer — Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, mandatorily requires previous sanction of the Collector for the transfer (including sale) of land purchased by a protected tenant under specified sections of the Act A transfer effected without such prior sanction is rendered invalid by
India Law Library Docid # 2424311

(720) BHIMABAI AND OTHERS Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND RECORD NASHIK DIVISION AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 28-03-2025
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 — Section 32(1) — Variation of Scheme — Limitation — Reasonable Period — An application seeking variation of a finalized consolidation scheme under Section 32(1) of the Act must be made within a reasonable period from the scheme coming into force — Based on judicial pronouncements, this reasonable period is generally considered to be three years, extendable only in exceptional cases with satisfactory explanation — Enterta
India Law Library Docid # 2424312