(861) LAZARUS LUNJALA Vs. THE ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (AELC) AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Societies — Election Disputes — Management — Disposal by Consent — Appointment of Controller — In writ appeals concerning long-standing and complex disputes between multiple factions regarding the rightful management and upcoming elections of a registered society (AELC), where pending litigation and competing claims threatened further chaos, the High Court, with the agreement of counsel for all parties, disposed of the appeals by appointing a retired J India Law Library Docid # 2424906
(862) M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHAMMAD ARIF AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 10 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Section 10 mandates that a claim for compensation should ordinarily be filed within two years of the accident — However, the proviso thereto empowers the Commissioner to entertain and decide a claim filed beyond this period if satisfied that the failure to file the claim in time was due to “sufficient cause” — Where the claimant underwent prolonged medical treatment and obtained a permanent di India Law Library Docid # 2424948
(863) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. PARNEET KAUR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can only be ordered if the plaint, read as a whole, falls under any of the clauses (a) to (f) — The court must examine the averments in the plaint itself, assuming them to be true, without looking at the defence. Objections like collusion or contradiction, not falling within the specified clauses, are not grounds for rejection under this rule. India Law Library Docid # 2424949
(864) PYARE LAL GUPTA Vs. SOM BALA ALIAS SUMAN KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 —Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 67] — Proof of Will — Onus Probandi — The onus of proving the due execution of a Will lies squarely and solely on the propounder of the Will This requires demonstrating compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, primarily through the examination of at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (Section 67 BSA) — This onus does not India Law Library Docid # 2424950
(865) GURMEET SINGH Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Promissory Estoppel / Legitimate Expectation — Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Promise — For a claim based on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation to succeed, the representation or promise made by the authority must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous — A person cannot claim a right based on altering their position pursuant to a promise or representation that was conditional or applicable only to a specific category of persons to which the claimant does not belong. India Law Library Docid # 2424951
(866) NARBADA DEVI Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 25-B(8) — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — The scope of interference by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is highly restrictive and supervisory in nature It is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction — The High Court may interfere only to satisfy itself that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to law,” and cannot substitute its own findings or re-appreciate evidence, particularly on questions of fact like bona India Law Library Docid # 2424952
(867) V.AKILESWARA REDDY Vs. GOLLA KARTHIK YADAV AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 14(3) — Production of Plaintiff's Documents — Leave of Court — Requirement of Reasons for Delay — The grant of leave under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for receiving documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which were not produced at the time of presenting the plaint, is discretionary — While technicalities should not always prevent evidence from coming on record, leave is not for mere asking — The plaintiff seeking to produce documents belatedly, especia India Law Library Docid # 2424964
(868) GODREJ PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs. FRONTIER HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against denial of Interim Relief (S.17) — Scope of Interference — The scope of an appeal under Section 37 against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) refusing to grant interim measures under Section 17 is highly circumscribed and analogous to the restrictive scope under Section 34 — The appellate court cannot conduct an independent assessment of merits or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interf India Law Library Docid # 2425000
(869) PREETY Vs. SUMIT KUMAR NARWAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6(a) Proviso — Interim Custody of Child Below Five Years — Welfare Principle Paramount — While Section 6(a) proviso states that custody of a minor child who has not completed five years shall ordinarily be with the mother, this is not an absolute rule — The paramount consideration in all custody matters, including interim custody, remains the welfare of the child — Courts can deviate from the ordinary rule if specific circumstances indicate tha India Law Library Docid # 2425038
(870) KANTA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 & Order 22 Rule 4 — Suit filed against Dead Person — Impleadment of Legal Representatives — Applicability of Provisions — A suit filed against a person who was already deceased at the time of institution is generally considered a nullity ab initio — An application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is technically not maintainable in such a case, as this provision applies only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit — The appropriate provision f India Law Library Docid # 2425039
(871) MATA RANI Vs. SECRETARY, PUNJAB TRANSPORT AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Proof of Negligence — Evidentiary Value of Criminal Court Findings — While the findings of a Criminal Court regarding rash and negligent driving in a connected criminal case are not strictly binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), they cannot be ignored when deciding the issue of negligence in a claim petition — Given the different standards of proof (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal trials versus ‘preponderance of prob India Law Library Docid # 2425040
(872) DALJIT SINGH HANJRA Vs. SIMRANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Quantum — Assessment Factors — In determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court must consider various factors including the status of the parties, respective needs of the claimant(s), income and assets (movable/immovable properties, business interests, rental income etc.) of the respondent-husband, liabilities, and the claimant’s independent income, if any — A comprehensive assessment based on evi India Law Library Docid # 2425041
(873) DIPANJAN BHATTACHARJEE Vs. MS. LAD DEVI JAIN[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 141 — Vicarious Liability — Partners/Directors — Essential Averments in Complaint — To fasten vicarious liability upon a partner (including a designated partner of an LLP) or director under Section 141 of the NI Act for an offence committed by the LLP/company, the complaint must contain specific averments that such person was, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of, and responsible to, the LLP/company for the conduct of its business — Merel India Law Library Docid # 2425206
(874) BIJOY RAM SINHA Vs. SHIB NATH BHADURI[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 114 Illustration (f) — General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Presumption of Service — Notice by Certificate of Posting — Rebuttal — Where a notice of intended sale, required under a contractual pre-emption clause in a partition deed, is proved to have been sent by certificate of posting to the correct address of the co-allottee (plaintiff), a presumption of due service arises under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act — This India Law Library Docid # 2425207
(875) DINESH KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Constitution of India — Article 22(1) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 50 — Bail — Grounds of Arrest — Requirement of Written Communication — The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requiring communication of grounds of arrest to the arrested person is sacrosanct and must be fulfilled by providing the grounds in writing at the earliest opportunity — This requirement is not diluted by Section 50 Cr.P.C. and applies irrespective of whether the arrest is made with or without a warra India Law Library Docid # 2425226
(876) LALIT GIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 90, 376 — Rape — Consent Vitiated by False Promise of Marriage — Conditions for Quashing — For quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in a case alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage, the Court must examine if two conditions are met to establish that consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC due to “misconception of fact”: (i) the promise of marriage must be proven false ab initio, made in bad faith with India Law Library Docid # 2425230
(877) SRI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 198(4), (5) & (6) [as amended] / U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 128 — Cancellation of Allotment/Lease — Limitation — The power vested in the competent authority (Assistant Collector In-charge of Sub-division/Collector) under Section 198(4) of the UPZALR Act to inquire into and cancel an irregular allotment of land, whether suo motu or on application, is subject to a mandatory period of limitation prescribed under Section 198(6) — F India Law Library Docid # 2425347
(878) POOJA PUNARAM PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Educational Law — Admission — Professional Course (Dental) — Procedural Irregularities by College — Failure by a college to upload names of duly admitted students (admitted before cut-off) on the regulatory portals (DCI/RUHS) by the stipulated date is a serious lapse attributable primarily to the college — Similarly, admitting students who are otherwise NEET qualified but not registered with the mandatory State Counselling Board is India Law Library Docid # 2425366
(879) LRS OF AVATAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. LRS OF GAJANAND AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 14(3) — Production of Documents after Filing Plaint — Due Diligence and Delay — An application to produce a document (certified copy of sale deed) under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, filed after an inordinate delay (13 years) from the institution of the suit, is liable to be rejected when the plaintiff was aware of the document’s existence and India Law Library Docid # 2425368
(880) SAMINA BANO @ SALMA Vs. DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, RAJASTHAN, BIKANER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025 Service Law — Recruitment — Reservation — Divorcee Category — Requirement of Court Decree — Where recruitment rules or advertisement explicitly requires candidates claiming benefit under the ‘Divorcee’ category to produce an order/decree of divorce from a competent court issued before the last date of application submission, this requirement is mandatory. India Law Library Docid # 2425365