(901) PRIYANKA PRIYADARSHI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Dowry demand and matrimonial cruelty — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 379 read with Section 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Allegations against husband’s relatives — General and omnibus allegations — Abuse of process of law — When allegations against husband’s relatives (sister-in-law, maternal uncle, maternal aunt) are general or vague, with India Law Library Docid # 2427717
(902) NITIN RAMESH GARJE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 09-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7(a), 12, 13(1), 13(2) — Anticipatory Bail — Rejection — Grounds for — Applicant, an Additional Tehsildar, sought pre-arrest bail for alleged corruption offenses. Allegations include demand and acceptance of bribes through agents (private persons) for official work (mutation entries). Evidence presented: a successful trap operation, CCTV footage showing the Applicant receiving cash from agents, and previous similar cases/inquiries (including India Law Library Docid # 2427701
(903) M/S. BASSEIN METALS PVT. LTD. Vs. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Companies Act, 1956 — Section 433(e) — Winding Up — Inability to Pay Debts — Principles for Winding Up — A company may be wound up if it is unable to pay its debts — The court will not act on a defense that the company has the ability to pay a debt but chooses not to pay it if the debt is undisputed — If the exact amount of an undisputed debt is in question, the court may still order winding up without precise quantification — A winding-up order is appropriate if the company’s defense is not in India Law Library Docid # 2427702
(904) M/S. POONAWALLA ESTATE STUD & AGRICULTURAL FARM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 41(1) — Profitable Chargeable to Tax — Mutual Exclusivity of Income Heads — Receipts from Insurance Claims — Capital Assets — Horses — Where horses were treated by the Revenue as capital assets, insurance claims received on their death cannot be taxed as ‘profits’ under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The heads of income under the Act are mutually exclusive, and income falling under one specific head cannot be shifted to another head merely India Law Library Docid # 2427703
(905) STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. EASTERN PAPER MILLS LIMITED AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Petition — Maintainability — Specific Performance of Contract — Delay and Laches — While the Limitation Act, 1963, in its entirety, does not strictly apply to writ petitions, delay and laches are crucial considerations for their maintainability and entertainability. Courts are reluctant to entertain writ petitions where the claim is otherwise time-barred. India Law Library Docid # 2427704
(906) RATAN KUMAR DAS @ RATAN DAS AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Proceedings — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband) — General and Vague Allegations — Absence of Specific Role — Allegations of cruelty against in-laws found to be general, omnibus, and lacking specific details regarding the mode, manner, date, or time of physical or mental India Law Library Docid # 2427705
(907) MARIAM BIBI AND OTHERS Vs. ASGARI KHATOON AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Tenancy Law – Declaration of Tenancy Rights – Exclusive Tenancy Claim – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs’ claim of exclusive tenancy through their predecessor, Noor Mohammed, was not established – Evidence, including rent receipts initially in joint names and later admissions by Noor Mohammed, indicated joint tenancy from inception, devolving to heirs of original co-tenants, Kopline and Maqbool – Plaintiffs India Law Library Docid # 2427706
(908) M/S SITA RAM IRON FOUNDRY AND ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. HINDUSTAN TECHNOCAST (P) LTD. AND ANR.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Sections 47, 57, 124, 125 — Rectification/Cancellation of Trademark — Allegations of fraud and fabrication — Requirement of proof — Petition for cancellation of “BADAL” trademark based on alleged fraudulent assignment deeds — Court emphasizes that allegations of fraud are serious and require a high degree of proof, akin to “beyond reasonable doubt” — Mere averments without sufficient evidence are inadequate — Plaintiff must prove their case India Law Library Docid # 2427707
(909) ANKIT KAPOOR Vs. MANYA VIJH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 24 — Interim Maintenance — Assessment of Income — Courts are not solely bound by Income Tax Returns (ITRs) when other material indicates a higher income or deliberate concealment — Financial capacity, lavish lifestyle (foreign travel, expensive cars), significant bank credits (even if claimed as reversed loans), and involvement in family businesses of the husband can India Law Library Docid # 2427708
(910) IMROZ IDRISH SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Regular Bail — Successive Bail Application — Maintainability and Considerations — A successive bail application is maintainable but its grant depends on the existence of fresh, new, and substantial changed circumstances, not merely cosmetic changes or a review of earlier rejection — The court must consider reasons for earlier rejection and new grounds warranting fresh evaluation — Delay in trial and period of incarceration alone, without other India Law Library Docid # 2427709
(911) MADHAV PRIYA SWAMI @ M.P. SWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Criminal Procedure — Anticipatory Bail — Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 BNSS, 2023) — Economic Offence — Principles for granting or refusing anticipatory bail — Factors to consider include nature and gravity of accusation, role of accused, antecedents, possibility of fleeing or repeating offences, impact on society, and need for custodial interrogation — Economic offences, especially those involving large sums and affecting the economy, are viewed seriously and ordinarily do not warrant India Law Library Docid # 2427710
(912) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUKHAN DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Adverse Possession — Inheritability and Tacking — General Principles — Essential elements for adverse possession are continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner’s knowledge (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario) — Such possession, when matured, confers a perfected right — Adverse possession is inheritable, and periods of adverse possession by successive persons can be “tacked” India Law Library Docid # 2427711
(913) DALEEP SINGH Vs. PNB AND ANDOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 397 (Revisional Jurisdiction) — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Revisional court is not an appellate court; its scope of interference is narrow, limited to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or law — It should not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless there is perversity, gross error, or a wholly unreasonable view — The revisional court should not delve at length into facts and evidence t India Law Library Docid # 2427712
(914) MUHAMMAD NAEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 2(i), 2(r), 2(s), 20, 21, 33 — Employment — Duty to provide light duties for employees with disability — An employer, Government or private “establishment,” is legally obligated to provide reasonable accommodation and a conducive environment to employees with disabilities; this includes identifying and allocating “light duties” commensurate with India Law Library Docid # 2427698
(915) POLU NASARAMMA Vs. ATLA NASARAMMA AND OTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — An appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be admitted if there is a substantial question of law. A substantial question of law affects the rights of parties and is either not settled by superior courts, or is difficult, or presents alternative views. It also arises if a decision ignores or contradicts settled legal principles. Mere India Law Library Docid # 2427699
(916) SHAIK ALLABAKSHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 27 — Execution of orders — Imprisonment for non-compliance — Power of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — The Act provides for levy of fine or imprisonment for failure to comply with an order of the Commission. However, such power requires a clear finding of non-compliance after due inquiry and procedural safeguards. Casual and indefinite detention without such findings is illegal. India Law Library Docid # 2427700
(917) VIJAY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 08-07-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Arrested for offences under Sections 8/18, 8/25 & 8/29 (recovery of commercial quantity of contraband) — Previous bail applications dismissed — Fifth bail application allowed — Court not required to record a positive finding that the accused is not guilty, only a prima facie assessment of whether guilt may be proved based on broad reading of material — Section 37 does not create an absolute embargo on bail. India Law Library Docid # 2428612
(918) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MUNNI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 08-07-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Award of compensation — Court upholds Tribunal's award, finding it proper and in accordance with law. India Law Library Docid # 2428613
(919) SAGAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 08-07-2025 Compassionate Appointment — Purpose — Object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and socio-economic support to the family of a deceased Government employee, not to provide long-term employment. The scheme aims to prevent the family from facing financial hardship and must be interpreted and implemented with sensitivity and compassion. India Law Library Docid # 2428760
(920) SATYAVEER SINGH POONIA AND OTHERS Vs. SUDESH KUMAR SAINI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 08-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Court must decide if the plaint discloses a cause of action based on averments and relied-upon documents — Rejection is based on face value of the plaint, not the strength of arguments. India Law Library Docid # 2428761