(141) CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Patent Law — Interim Injunction — Principles for Grant — For an interim injunction to be granted in a patent infringement case, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of infringement, balance of convenience in their favour, and that irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted. India Law Library Docid # 2427538
(142) CHANDULAL JIVRAJBHAI PADARIYA AND ANOTHER Vs. DINESHBHAI MANILAL DESAI[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Bombay Rent Act, S. 29(2) — Civil Revision Application — Scope — Court’s revisional jurisdiction circumscribed to examining whether Courts below acted within law, jurisdiction, and without material irregularity — Re-examination or re-appreciation of evidence, or substituting plausible alternative views, is impermissible unless findings are perverse — High Court cannot interfere with factual findings India Law Library Docid # 2427539
(143) SUNIL GUPTA Vs. BANK OF INDIA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of Complaint — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. — High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, cannot assume the powers of an appellate or revisional court, nor conduct a mini-trial — The court is India Law Library Docid # 2427540
(144) CCL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 102 — Criminal Revision — Principles of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law — Interpretation of “shall” — Mandatory nature — The word “shall” in Section 12(1) of the JJ Act implies that releasing a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) on bail is generally mandatory, unless specific statutory exceptions are met. India Law Library Docid # 2427541
(145) ASIF AMIN CHALKOO AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 04-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17A — Enquiry, inquiry, or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations/decisions of public servant — Mandatory nature — Previous approval of government is mandatory for conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into an alleged offence committed by a public servant under the PC Act, where the offence is relatable to any recommendation made India Law Library Docid # 2427542
(146) UT OF J&K AND OTHERS Vs. MRS. RAJINDER OBEROI[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 04-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (J&K) — Section 34 — Setting Aside Arbitral Award — Scope of Judicial Review — The power of the Court to interfere with an arbitral award is extremely limited, confined to the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act. The Court is not to act as an appellate court, cannot re-appreciate evidence, or re-interpret agreement terms if the arbitral interpretation is plausible and reasonable. Not every error of law constitutes patent illegality. Courts should fo India Law Library Docid # 2427543
(147) WASEEM QURESHI Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 04-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Exoneration in Departmental Enquiry — Impact on Criminal Proceedings — While a criminal case and a departmental inquiry are distinct proceedings, if the charges are identical and the exoneration in the departmental inquiry is on the merits, indicating that the allegations are not sustainable and the person is innocent, then continuing with criminal prosecution amounts to an abuse of the court’s process. The standard of proof is high India Law Library Docid # 2427544
(148) UNION OF INDIA Vs. SITARAM SAHU AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 — Section 17(2) — Enhancement of Compensation — Award of Tribunal — Market Value — Comparison with Previous Awards — Onus of Proof — Where both parties fail to produce comparable sale deeds, the Tribunal can rely on the nearest available evidence, such as a previous judgment for a nearby acquisition, even if chronologically earlier, and make a reasonable estimation or “guesswork” to determine fair compensation. The Court confirmed the Tr India Law Library Docid # 2427545
(149) SMT. PUTTAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 21 — Execution Proceedings — Stay of Execution — Effect of pendency of Special Leave Petition (SLP) and ‘status quo’ order from Supreme Court — Where the subject matter of an execution petition is also a subject of a pending SLP before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has ordered parties to maintain “status quo with regard to the properties in question,” the India Law Library Docid # 2427546
(150) MANJUSHA K.P Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 — Section 7(2) — Grounds of detention — Supply of legible documents — Procedural safeguards — Detenu’s right to effective representation — The law mandates strict compliance with procedural formalities in preventive detention cases, particularly regarding the supply of documents. Where critical documents are supplied in an illegible and unreadable format, it constitutes a serious lapse by the detaining authority. This prevents the detenu from India Law Library Docid # 2427547
(151) M/S TANEJA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. THROUGH MANOJ TANEJA Vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE) AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 04-07-2025 Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 — Eligibility — Finality of Adjudication — An application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR) is not maintainable if the tax dispute has attained finality before the introduction of the Scheme, specifically where appellate proceedings were concluded before June 30, 2019, or show cause notices heard and decided before this date as per Section 125 of the Finance Act. India Law Library Docid # 2427548
(152) SRINWATI MUKHERJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) — Section 2(s) — “Shared Household” — Scope and Definition — A property under construction and not yet in possession of either party cannot be considered a “Shared Household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, even if an “Agreement for Sale” has been executed in joint names and only two installments remain unpaid. The definition requires actual or constructive residence, or a right to reside in a household that is in existence and India Law Library Docid # 2427549
(153) ECI-KEYSTONE (JV) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRLCE[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to Rule on its Jurisdiction — Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Jurisdiction — Waiver — Acquiescence — An arbitral award cannot be annulled solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction (owing to the applicability of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983) if no objection to the jurisdiction was raised at the relevant stage of the arbitration India Law Library Docid # 2427550
(154) MINOR B.SADHANA @ KANISHIKA AND OTHER (MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN A.LAKSHMI) Vs. K.BALAMURUGAN AND OTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 04-07-2025 Hindu Law — Ancestral Property — Nature of Property Acquisition — Property acquired through a partition decree loses its character as ancestral or coparcenary property and becomes the absolute property of the recipient. India Law Library Docid # 2427865
(155) DINESH KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH SINGH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope – The High Court, in criminal revision against conviction, is not supposed to exercise jurisdiction like an appellate court; the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow — The object of Section 397 CrPC is to rectify patent defects or errors of jurisdiction or law — A well-founded error, determined on the merits of each individual case, is required for interference — The Revisional Cou India Law Library Docid # 2427478
(156) M/S COTTAGE ARTS EMPORIUM Vs. INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 — Sections 7(1) & 7(2) — Recovery of arrears of rent and damages — Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 — The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 7(1) as well as to proceedings for recovery of damages under Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The distinction previously drawn between Section 7(1) and 7(2) regarding the applicability India Law Library Docid # 2427479
(157) COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. Vs. SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — A court has the power to dismiss a suit at the threshold if any of the grounds specified in Order VII Rule 11 are met, aiming to prevent unnecessary delays and end sham litigation — The court must perform a meaningful reading of the plaint to determine if it displays a real cause of action or something purely illusory, and should nip vexatious and meritless litigation in the bud when clever drafting creates an illusion India Law Library Docid # 2427480
(158) VASAVA LILABEN D/O KESURBHAI AND W/O SHANTIBHAI AND ANOTHER Vs. BHARATKUMAR BALDEVBHAI DESAI[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7, Rule 11(a) — Rejection of Plaint — No Cause of Action — Suit for permanent injunction by holder of unregistered agreement to sell without seeking specific performance — An unregistered agreement to sell holder cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction alone without seeking specific performance of the agreement, as such a suit does not disclose a cause of action. India Law Library Docid # 2427481
(159) M/S. VRAJ DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THROUGH PARTNER AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESHBHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Illusory cause of action – Clever drafting – When the averments in the plaint, read meaningfully and holistically (including supporting documents), reveal that the claimed cause of action is merely an illusion to circumvent the statute of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The court must scrutinize whether the litigation is India Law Library Docid # 2427482
(160) GOPAL CHAND Vs. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — The High Court can only interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only a view consistent with the accused’s guilt is possible from the evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2427483