(961) VIKAS PREMISES CO-OP SOC LTD. Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Property Law — Dangerous Buildings — Demolition — Public Safety — A building declared “C-1” (extremely ruinous) and posing imminent collapse risk necessitates immediate preventive action, including demolition, even if the owner proposes repairs too late in time. The safety of human life and surrounding property takes precedence over procedural disputes or commercial considerations. India Law Library Docid # 2427472
(962) KARNI SINGH Vs. M/S MUSKAN DENTAL CARE AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Dispute — Court's role is to facilitate arbitration when clause exists and dispute is evident — Allegations of financial loss and non-fulfillment of promises created a clear dispute. India Law Library Docid # 2428696
(963) MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Textiles (Development & Regulations) Order, 2001 — Clause 8(2) — Power of Textile Commissioner to issue directions on yarn packing — Requirement to specify period of operation — Notification issued without specifying operational period is invalid — Supreme Court decision in Shri Rangaswami, the Textile Commissioner & Ors. Vs. The Sagar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. (1977) 2 SCC 578 is binding. India Law Library Docid # 2428697
(964) CHAMPA LAL Vs. MEETHA LAL AND OTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 — Section 29 — Bar to suit — Unregistered Trust — Valuation of property — Burden of proof — Absence of pleading or evidence — The Civil Court is not required to determine the valuation of temple property (and consequently, whether the trust is a public or private trust requiring mandatory registration under Section 29) when the defendant fails to raise specific pleadings or adduce evidence regarding the property’s valuation or income, especially India Law Library Docid # 2427485
(965) SRI GOLLA HARIDASYADAV Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, is a 2002 — Section 13(8) — Right of Redemption — Auction Sale of Secured Asset — Prior to 2016 amendment, borrower’s right of redemption was available until completion of sale/transfer; after 2016 amendment, this right extinguishes on the date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of 2002 Rules — Where an e-auction of a hypothecated vehicle was validly India Law Library Docid # 2427420
(966) SMT. CHETNA PATLE Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Service Law — Seniority — Teachers — Absorption — M.P. State Education Service Teaching Cadre Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 — Rule 17(3) read with Rule 2(l) — Seniority of teachers absorbed from one local body to another — The Rules of 2018 specify that seniority for teachers migrating between local bodies (from Janpad Panchayat to Municipal Council) is reckoned from the date of joining the new local body, not from the initial appointment in the previous local body — This rule s India Law Library Docid # 2427422
(967) PRADEEP KUMAR @ PAPPU @ BHURIYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 01-07-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363, 366, 354, 376 and 511— Conviction and Sentence — Challenge to Trial Court’s Order — Where the victim’s testimony (both Section 164 CrPC statement and trial evidence) consistently proves forcible kidnapping, detention, outrage of modesty, and attempted rape, and nothing in cross-examination creates doubt about her veracity, the conviction is upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2427345
(968) MOHD. SALEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P. THUR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 01-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Offence of taking gratification by public servant — Essential ingredients — Demand of illegal gratification is a necessary condition (sine qua non) to prove this offense — Mere recovery of money on its own is not enough to establish the offense unless it’s proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused willingly accepted the money knowing it was a India Law Library Docid # 2427346
(969) USHA ARJUN PAWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 01-07-2025 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 — Section 33(5) — Validity of Election — Jurisdiction of Collector — Fraudulent Caste Certificate — The Collector has jurisdiction under Section 33(5) to decide disputes regarding the “validity of election” of a Sarpanch, including cases where a candidate secured election to a reserved post by submitting a fabricated caste validity certificate. The phrase “dispute arising as to India Law Library Docid # 2427347
(970) EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHER Vs. MANGALI @ MANGALA BOURI[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Compassionate Appointment — National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) — Interpretation — Clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 — Compassionate appointment or monetary compensation under NCWA is not subject to disqualification due to financial solvency or delay — Provisions of NCWA, being a settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be strictly construed. India Law Library Docid # 2427348
(971) SMT. NIRMALA DEVI Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 — Section 9 — Land Acquisition — Employment in lieu of acquisition — Rejection of claim — Grounds for rejection — Mutation records and dependent status — Acquisition of land for SECL, compensation paid to petitioner — Petitioner’s claim for son’s employment rejected because her name was not mutated in land records at the time of initial notification and her son was not born then — Court finds rejection based on India Law Library Docid # 2427349
(972) CHANDRAKANT NISHAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH POLICE STATION URLA, DISTRICT RAIPUR (CHHATTIGARH)[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Criminal Law — Murder (IPC S. 302) — Destruction of Evidence (IPC S. 201) — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a complete chain without any gap, consistent only with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. The prosecution must fully establish each circumstance. India Law Library Docid # 2427350
(973) MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SANGEETA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance proceedings — Distinction between Interim Maintenance and Ad-Interim Maintenance — Interim maintenance is a temporary allowance granted after hearing both parties, considering pleadings and prima facie rights, pending final adjudication — Ad-interim maintenance is a provisional relief granted at an initial stage or ex-parte to prevent irreparable harm, prior to adjudicating even interim maintenance, to India Law Library Docid # 2427351
(974) NOIDA DHATU PVT. LTD. Vs. UDAI CONTINENTALS AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Proprietary concern — Liability — A proprietary concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor — Only the proprietor can be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act — Section 141 of the NI Act (which deals with vicarious liability for companies, firms, or other associations of individuals) does not apply to a proprietary concern as it is not a juristic person — The proprietor is solely responsible India Law Library Docid # 2427352
(975) SAGAR AMBARAM FULTARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — General Principles — Discretionary Power — The grant of anticipatory bail is a discretionary power to be exercised by the Court, balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation and societal interest in combating crime. India Law Library Docid # 2427353
(976) SURINDER CHAUHAN Vs. JAI LAL BRAGRA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 24(5) — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope and Extent — The High Court’s revisional power under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act, though widely worded, cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction. The revisional court cannot re-appreciate or re-assess evidence to arrive at a different factual finding. Its role is to ascertain if the lower court’s findings of fact are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any error of law, such as India Law Library Docid # 2427354
(977) GOPAL SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. GIAN SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Limitation — Cause of Action — A suit for declaration of title and partition by a co-owner, alleging invalidity of revenue entries regarding exclusive possession of another, cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of being time-barred or lacking a cause of action, especially where the claim arises from subsisting title. India Law Library Docid # 2427355
(978) MAAN CHAND Vs. STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDHAMPUR.[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 01-07-2025 Criminal Procedure — Conviction and Sentencing — Murder (Section 302 RPC) — Circumstantial Evidence — Appellate Review — High Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal challenging a conviction and sentence for murder, and to consider a reference for confirmation of sentence under Section 374 of J&K Code of Criminal Procedure. India Law Library Docid # 2427356
(979) SRIHARI MAHATO @ HARI MAHATO Vs. THE STATE JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Criminal Law — Rape — Evidentiary Value of Prosecutrix’s Testimony — While the sole testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence, a court must assess its credibility, especially when inconsistencies or improbabilities exist. If the victim’s narrative is incoherent, improbable, or belies logic, it ought not to be believed without corroboration. India Law Library Docid # 2427357
(980) SRI PRAKASH @ SHREE PRAKASH Vs. ARUN KUMAR ASHANA AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 01-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Impleadment of parties — Letters of Administration — Scope of proceedings — Rejection of impleadment application — Maintainability of fresh application by successor-in-interest— Where the father of the petitioner had already sought impleadment in a Letters of Administration (LA) case, and his application was rejected on the grounds that intervener was not a necessary party as the proceeding concerned only the validity of India Law Library Docid # 2427358