ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(821) SMT. SOMURI RAVALI Vs. SOMURI PURNACHANDRA RAO[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e)(i), 11(6), 29A(4) & (5) — Jurisdiction for Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate — Domestic Arbitration — High Court Appointment — In a domestic arbitration where the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4) or (5) vests solely with the High Court — Consequently, a Commercial
India Law Library Docid # 2424837

(822) MOHAMMAD DASTAGIR KHAN @ ASIF Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Sections 15 & 19 — Two-Stage Assessment for Trying Child as Adult — The Act mandates a two-stage process when determining if a child aged 16-18, alleged to have committed a heinous offence, should be tried as an adult: (i) A preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 15 regarding the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand consequences, and circumstances of the offence; and (ii) A sub
India Law Library Docid # 2424845

(823) ISKA VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY Vs. N.VIJAYA KRISHNA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Pleading and Proof — In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the plaintiff must mandatorily plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of the agreement until the date of hearing/decree Readiness pertains to financial capacity, while willingness pertains to conduct — A mere statement in the plaint or affidavit asserting readiness is insufficient
India Law Library Docid # 2424890

(824) KMV PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope and Grounds — The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed and distinct from appellate power It can be exercised upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence (despite due diligence), or on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto — Review cannot be sought merely because the original decision is erroneous on merits — An “error appa
India Law Library Docid # 2424891

(825) SURYAS RAVI PRAKASH RAO Vs. MOHITHE MANOHAR RAO AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — Sections 9, 10, 17, 25 — Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6, 13 — Child Custody — Paramount Consideration — Welfare of Minor— In determining the custody of a minor child, the paramount and often sole consideration for the Court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, is the welfare and best interest of the child The legal rights of the contending parties, including the preferential right of the natural guardian (father), are subordinate to the
India Law Library Docid # 2424894

(826) CHITTIBOTLA BHARDWAJA SARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Appointment of Founder Trustee— Consideration of mandamus to compel respondents (Endowments Department) to appoint the petitioner as Founder Trustee and Chairman of a temple based on alleged hereditary rights, family history of management, and entries recorded in the statutory register under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987.
India Law Library Docid # 2424900

(827) KARRI ROJA RAMANI Vs. JANNADA APPA RAO[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151 & Order 39 Rule 2-A — Police Aid for Injunction Implementation vs. Consequences of Disobedience — Distinction — An application seeking police aid/protection under Section 151 CPC for the implementation of a temporary injunction order (granted under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2) is distinct in scope and purpose from an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, which deals with the consequences (like attachment or detention) for disobedience or breach of an in
India Law Library Docid # 2424905

(828) GANGULA AMMAJI Vs. KUNAPAREDDI SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI DIED AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Finding on Title in Suit for Permanent Injunction — Law is settled that an incidental finding on title, arrived at in a simple suit for permanent injunction based primarily on possession, will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed specifically for declaration of title, particularly if no specific issue regarding title was framed and finally decided in the earlier injunction suit.
India Law Library Docid # 2424908

(829) BINOY MONDAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 107 — Abetment of Suicide — Mens Rea — Proximate Act — To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt not only harassment but also a clear mens rea (intention) on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide — There must be proof of a positive, proximate act, omission, or creation of circumstances by the accused that directly led to the suicide, leavin
India Law Library Docid # 2425166

(830) KAMAL GHORAI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 361 — Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship — Minor having attained Age of Discretion — Voluntary Departure — ‘Taking’ vs. ‘Allowing to Accompany’ — Where a minor female, though below 18 years but having attained the age of discretion (around 14 years in this case), voluntarily leaves her lawful guardian’s keeping due to a pre-existing love affair and joins the accused without any active inducement, force, or allurement attributable to the accused, it does not constitute
India Law Library Docid # 2425167

(831) SAI NAGESWAR SATCHIDANAND Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing Criminal Proceedings & Settlement — High Court can quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, based on a valid compromise/settlement, especially in cases arising from matrimonial/family disputes, to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, where conviction possibility is remote
India Law Library Docid # 2425332

(832) DEVESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI Vs. COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 10-04-2025
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 — Rule 285-J Confirmation of Sale — An auction sale under the Rules becomes automatically confirmed after 30 days if no application to set it aside under Rule 285-H or 285-I is made or if such application is rejected; the confirmation order is final
India Law Library Docid # 2425333

(833) ISHAN CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
UP Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 80 Declaration vs. Partition — A declaration under Section 80(1) pertains only to the change of land use to non-agricultural purposes and does not effectuate or imply a partition of the land among co-owners
India Law Library Docid # 2425334

(834) RAMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P THRU HOME SECY. ANNEXE BHAWAN LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 10-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing Criminal Proceedings — Mala Fides — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed if manifestly attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive (wreaking vengeance due to private grudge), falling under guideline (7) of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
India Law Library Docid # 2425330

(835) USMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 173(8) — Further Investigation — Power to direct further investigation exists even after filing of chargesheet and commencement of trial, with the prime consideration being to arrive at the truth and do substantial justice
India Law Library Docid # 2425331

(836) DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 27-A, 29 & 37 — Bail Application — Commercial Quantity — Rigors of Section 37 — Applicant is accused of offences involving commercial quantity of contraband (468.380 grams of “Chitta/Heroin”) and financing illicit traffic (Section 27-A) — Recovered contraband seized from co-accused — Applicant allegedly
India Law Library Docid # 2425900

(837) DWIJESH KANT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201 — Quashing of FIR — Demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant — Allegations of demand and acceptance of Rs. 10,000/- bribe and further demand of Rs. 20,000/- for carrying out official work, supported by video recording — Such allegations constitute cognizable offence — Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon inquiry into reliability or genuineness of allegations at pr
India Law Library Docid # 2425901

(838) DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. LEKH RAM[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Suit for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction — Joint property — Co-ownership and Possession — Raising construction by a co-owner — Essential ingredients for injunction against co-owner are threat of exclusive appropriation, detriment to other co-owners, diminution of value or utility, and material injury or interference with accustomed user — Mere construction or improvement by one co-owner generally does not constitute ouster — Plea of joint possession co
India Law Library Docid # 2425935

(839) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KAMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal — Compensation Award — Excessive Assessment — Insurer’s contention that assessment is excessive due to consideration of gross salary without income tax deduction, incorrect multiplier application (uniform vs. split), incorrect personal expenses deduction (1/4th vs. 1/3rd or 50%), and non-adherence to Pranay Sethi judgment for conventional heads — Court’s re-assessment by deducting income tax, confirming uniform multiplier
India Law Library Docid # 2425936

(840) AJEET YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. DR. HIMAKSHI SHARMA AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings — Scope of High Court’s inherent powers — FIR under Section 498-A of IPC and proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — Principles for quashing: allegations in complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute offence; clear abuse of process; allegations absurd and inherently improbable — Quashing not permissible if complaint discloses prima facie cognizable
India Law Library Docid # 2425937