ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
     Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator [on behalf of Appellant/Respondent]  

Latest Cases

(801) PAPPULAL Vs. M/S. S.N. REALMART AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Application for rejection of plaint based on disputed facts and legal contentions — Court's power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is limited to examining averments in the plaint — If the objections raised require delving into evidence, the application must be dismissed — Trial court correctly dismissed the application as it did not err in its
India Law Library Docid # 2428608

(802) MADAN MOHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306, 107 — Abetment of suicide — Essential ingredients — Active instigation or intentional aid required — Mere financial disputes, harassment or mental distress not sufficient unless directly linked to inciting or facilitating suicide — Suicide note stating act done "of my own volition" negates coercion — Conviction requires positive act proximately leading to suicide.
India Law Library Docid # 2428746

(803) FIRM JEHTMAL & SONS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 385, 386 — Appeal against conviction — Dismissal for non-prosecution — An appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution; it must be heard and decided on merits even if the appellant or their counsel is absent. Courts are not obligated to adjourn cases but can decide on merits. If justice is denied, higher courts can provide remedy
India Law Library Docid # 2428747

(804) BRIJENDRA SINGH Vs. BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 — Temporary Injunction — Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury — Dismissal of application for temporary injunction by trial court upheld by High Court — Appellant failed to establish all three essential conditions required for grant of temporary injunction.
India Law Library Docid # 2428748

(805) SMT. SUSHILA Vs. RADHESHYAM[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Dismissal of application — Erroneous appreciation of evidence — Family Court erred in dismissing the maintenance application by selectively relying on isolated statements from cross-examination and making perverse observations about the applicant’s living
India Law Library Docid # 2428749

(806) MOTIYA ALIAS AMMICHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — Section 189(2) (corresponding to Cr.P.C., Section 169) — Release of accused when evidence deficient — Application by Investigating Officer (IO) for release of petitioner based on re-investigation finding petitioner innocent — Trial court dismissing application on technical ground of lack of prior court permission for re-investigation — High Court quashing dismissal order, emphasizing liberty of individual and duty of judiciary to protect it — Re-investigatio
India Law Library Docid # 2428750

(807) SMT. SUJATA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 46(4) — Arrest of Woman — After Sunset and Before Sunrise — Mandate for Lady Police Officer and Prior Permission from Judicial Magistrate — When a woman is accused of an offense, her arrest between sunset and sunrise is prohibited unless exceptional circumstances exist — In such exceptional cases, a lady police officer must make a written report and
India Law Library Docid # 2427795

(808) SK. FAKRODDIN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Criminal Law — Rape — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(f) — Conviction Challenge — Evidentiary Value — Sufficiency of Evidence — In a case challenging conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, the court must meticulously evaluate the prosecution evidence, including the victim’s testimony, parental testimony, and medical evidence for corroboration.
India Law Library Docid # 2427796

(809) RUPA JITENDRA DESHPRABHU Vs. DR. VASUDEV RAJENDRA DESHPRABHU[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Execution of Decree — Objections by Third Party — Maintainability of Repeated Objections — A second application by a third party raising objections identical to a previously dismissed application under Section 47, where the previous dismissal was on merits and upheld by higher courts, is not maintainable — The principle of res judicata or issue estoppel prevents re
India Law Library Docid # 2427797

(810) MS. NEERA MISRA Vs. RAKESH CHANDRA MISRA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6, Rule 17 — Amendment of Pleadings — Precedence over Order VII, Rule 11 Application — An application for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC must be decided before an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, even if the latter was filed earlier in time.
India Law Library Docid # 2427798

(811) VINOD RAI @ BHULLAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 2(d), 5(m), 6, 12, 29, 30, 42 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 354A, 376(2)(n)(i), 450, 506 — Sexual Offences — Conviction and Sentence — Appeal against conviction for sexual assault, house trespass, criminal intimidation and sexual harassment — Age of victim crucial for POCSO Act application.
India Law Library Docid # 2427799

(812) GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. RAMANBHAI CHANDULAL PARIKH AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 20, Rule 4 — Judgment — Essential contents — A judgment of a court other than a Small Cause Court must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and reasons for such decision — Trial Court’s dismissal of a suit based on the nature of a guarantee (simple vs. continuing) without framing a specific issue on this point constitutes an error of law and facts and a violation of Order XX, Rule 4.
India Law Library Docid # 2427800

(813) ELDER ICIC HEALTH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. GLIDE CHEM PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Complaint — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Grounds for Quashing — Supreme Court guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings are illustrative and not exhaustive, to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice — Principles include: no prima facie offence made out, allegations are absurd/improbable, express
India Law Library Docid # 2427801

(814) STATE (NOW U.T) OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review Application — Scope of Review — A review application cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-argue a case or introduce new grounds not previously raised before the Tribunal or Writ Court — Review is permissible only for errors apparent on the face of the record, not for re-hearing or correcting an erroneous decision, or to allow parties to argue new
India Law Library Docid # 2427802

(815) DEVENDRA NATH PRAMANICK (THAKUR) Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA PRAMANICK[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 152 — Amendment of judgment, decree or order — Partition Suit — Joinder of properties — Where the trial court and the first appellate court have concurrently found, based on evidence, that certain lands were not proven to be joint ancestral property and thus not subject to partition, an application under Section 152 CPC to add such lands after a preliminary decree is not
India Law Library Docid # 2427803

(816) BABBU @ BABU SINGH LODHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Criminal Law — Conviction and Sentence — Quashing — Lack of Substantial Evidence — Where the prosecution’s case relies heavily on the testimony of the victim and her mother, but their evidence is internally contradictory, medically unsubstantiated, and influenced by personal/political motivations leading to manipulation and false implication, the conviction is liable to be set aside.
India Law Library Docid # 2427804

(817) B/S BEIJING SPC ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION TECH CO. LTD. THRU. OPERATION MANAGER LU. JING Vs. M/S UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. THRU. CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 11-07-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim measures — Bank Guarantee — Injunction against encashment — Principles — A bank guarantee is a separate contract from the main contract and its invocation depends on its terms — Injunction against encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee can only be granted in two exceptions: (i) fraud of an egregious nature vitiating the entire bank guarantee transaction, or (ii) existence of special equities leading to “irretrievable
India Law Library Docid # 2427792

(818) AMARAVATHI YANTHRIKA ISUKA PADAVA YAJAMANULA SANGHAM OFFICE Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Seventh Schedule — List I, Entry 30; List III, Entry 32 — Legislative Competence — National Waterways — Inland Waterways — Executive Power — Where a river stretch is declared a “National Waterway,” Parliamentary legislation (Inland Waterways Authority of India Act, 1985, read with National Waterways Act, 2016) governs the field, and the executive power in respect
India Law Library Docid # 2427793

(819) PASUMARTHI VEERA BHADRA RAO Vs. CHINNI VEERABHADRAVATHI[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to cases involving a substantial question of law — It cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts unless those findings are contrary to mandatory law, contrary to Apex Court pronouncements, or based on inadmissible/no
India Law Library Docid # 2427794

(820) SH. ASHISH GUPTA Vs. MR. MAHESH CHANDRA SINGHAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-07-2025
Consumer Protection — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — The Commission emphasized that condoning delay is a discretionary power requiring "sufficient cause," meaning an adequate and enough reason for not approaching the court within the prescribed time. Negligence, lack of bona fides, or lack of diligence are not
India Law Library Docid # 2428129