(941) RAMAVTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 364, 394, 302 — Criminal Appeal — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction must be based on evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Chain of evidence must be complete and exclude all other hypotheses — Weaknesses in prosecution case include lack of blood stains on a recovered knife, no fingerprints taken, ambiguity in the cause of death, doubtful identification of recovered anklets, non-FSL examination of blood-stained clothes, lack India Law Library Docid # 2432750
(942) SHARWANRAM @ SHARWAN BABAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Bail — Grant of — Considerations — Nature and gravity of accusation, nature of evidence, severity of punishment, criminal antecedents, ensuring appearance at trial, likelihood of tampering with evidence, larger interest of society, and peculiar circumstances of the accused are all factors to consider India Law Library Docid # 2432751
(943) M/S UNIPACK, BHIWADI UNIT, (SINCE CLOSED) THEN REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SHRI VINOD JUNEJA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST, CGST COMMISSIONERATE AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11BB and 35FF — Refund of duty — Interest on excess payment — Petitioner deposited excess excise duty due to mistaken understanding of law — Refund of excess duty was granted after a long period — Refusal to grant interest on excess duty is illegal and arbitrary — Amount collected without authority of law must be refunded with interest — Petitioner entitled to India Law Library Docid # 2432752
(944) AAYUSH NARANIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Sections 269, 340 — Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) — Standard of Procedure (SoP), Clause 4 — Liquor shops — Grant of License — Cancellation of License — Meat shops within 50 meters of place of worship — Issue whether license can be granted within 50 meters of place of worship — SoP issued under statutory provisions prohibits grant of license if meat India Law Library Docid # 2432753
(945) VIMLA BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conviction — Appeal against — Accused convicted for murdering her niece by an axe blow — Sole eye-witness whose testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — Accused admitted to running away from the scene — Recovery of weapon of offence and presence of human blood thereon — Post-mortem confirming cause of death by axe India Law Library Docid # 2432754
(946) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HANSHA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 302/149, 341, 323/149, 148 — Arms Act, Section 3/25 — Acquittal by Trial Court — Appeal against — Complainant's evidence regarding identification of accused as assailants found contradictory and unreliable — Key witnesses did not consistently identify all accused, or their vantage points for witnessing the incident were doubtful — No recovery of weapons from India Law Library Docid # 2432755
(947) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-09-2025 Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will validity — Probate — High Court upheld the validity of a Will and granted probate, finding compliance with statutory requirements — State of Rajasthan sought to challenge this based on escheat, but its locus standi was questioned. India Law Library Docid # 2432760
(948) KESAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Vs. HARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 14 Rule 15(1) read with Section 151 — Issues framed incorrectly — Burden of proof — In a suit for declaration wherein plaintiffs claim ownership by inheritance and defendant claims ownership based on a Will, the defendant who propounds the Will has the burden of proving its validity. A lower court order directing the defendant to lead evidence first when the plaintiffs have India Law Library Docid # 2432675
(949) SARASWATI Vs. ROSHNI DEVI[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Amendment permissible after commencement of trial only if due diligence is established — Plaintiff sought amendment after trial commenced and 5 witnesses were examined — Amendment sought to challenge mutation and revenue entries, changing the nature of the suit from injunction to declaration — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering the mutation earlier — Such India Law Library Docid # 2432676
(950) RAHUL AND ANOTHER Vs. AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Written Statement — Trial stage — Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 states ordinarily no amendment of pleadings permitted once trial commences — Petitioners failed to show cause for delay in filing amendment application — Petitioners attained majority in 2018 and 2019 respectively, but filed application in September 2024, indicating an India Law Library Docid # 2432677
(951) TEHAL SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of contract — Onus is on plaintiff — "Readiness" refers to financial capacity, "willingness" refers to conduct — Plaintiff's claims regarding source of funds were evasive and contradictory (bank accounts, India Law Library Docid # 2432688
(952) KHURANA CONSTRUCTION Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 119(2)(b) — Power to condone delay or grant relaxation — Application for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) — Petitioner claimed TDS credit based on Form 26AS reflecting a lower amount than actually deducted — Petitioner applied under Section 119(2)(b) after the limitation period for revised returns expired due to genuine hardship — Rejection of application by Principal India Law Library Docid # 2432730
(953) TRILOKI NATH SINGLA AND ANOTHER Vs. ICICI BANK AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-09-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Continuing cause of action — Complaint filed after two years of cause of action barred unless sufficient cause shown — Payment of EMIs does not constitute a continuing cause of action for challenging interest rates unless the wrong itself continues — Mere continuation of damage does not make a wrong continuing. India Law Library Docid # 2432823
(954) THE TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AND ANOTHER Vs. ANDHE LAKSHMIMANTH[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — While courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and be liberal in condoning delay for government entities, the cause must be genuine, bona fide and fall within a reasonable time, not be casual or lackadaisical. The delay does not excuse negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides, and the court must balance advancing substantial justice against India Law Library Docid # 2433038
(955) MUTYAM RAVINDER GOUD Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Sections 19 and 20 — Lok Adalat award — Validity of — Principles of Justice, Equity, Fair Play mandatory — Presence of all parties to original proceedings before Lok Adalat is mandatory — Fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining award — Burden of proof on petitioner to prove with concrete evidence — If complicated questions of fact involved, remedy lies in civil court. India Law Library Docid # 2433040
(956) SHIVLAL LALLUBHAI AND OTHERS Vs. BENABEN WD/O NARANBHAI PARBHUBHAI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) — Rejection of plaint — Cause of action — Limitation — Court must scrutinize plaint to determine if it discloses a real cause of action or is purely illusory — Frivolous litigation should be nipped in the bud. India Law Library Docid # 2433193
(957) PRAVINKUMAR SHANKARLAL PATEL Vs. JADIBEN SOMABHAI SENMA AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Suit for declaration of ownership by adverse possession — Plaint can be rejected at the threshold if it is evidently barred by law, without allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2433135
(958) MD. RUSTAM ANSARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 4 — Vesting of Estate — Tanks recorded as "shairat" in the shairat register have vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act. Even if a hukumnama was initially valid, the tanks, being "shairat" properties, are not saved from vesting. India Law Library Docid # 2433398
(959) SALIM MIAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-09-2025 Criminal Appeal — Burden of proof on prosecution — Failure to examine crucial witnesses — Examination "hostileness" of one witness, doctor as witness of fact, formal witness, accused whose name in FIR not examined, eye-witness examined as court witness stating no knowledge, investigating officer not examined to prove place of occurrence — Weakens prosecution case. India Law Library Docid # 2433399
(960) BUDHESWAR KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-09-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Conviction — Appeal — Defence plea of provocation — Victim attempting to outrage modesty of accused’s wife — Accused's assertion that death occurred from a fall — Medical evidence confirming head injuries caused death — Eyewitness accounts of blows with a lathi — Absence of blood stains on seized weapon and lack of forensic analysis weaken prosecution case. (Paras 3, India Law Library Docid # 2433531