(161) SHRI KRISHNARAO KODANCHA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964 — Sections 187 & 188 — Building Licence — Cancellation — Power of Authority — A building licence issued under Section 188 of the Act can only be revoked on grounds of material misrepresentation or fraudulent statements in the initial application furnished under Section 187 of the Act — Section 187(9) of the Act outlines conditions for commencement of construction, adherence to plan, and compliance with regulations, but does not provide for cancellation of an India Law Library Docid # 2427484
(162) SUREKHA Vs. AXIS BANK AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — High Courts — Writ Jurisdiction — Powers — Mandamus — Appointment of Guardian — Adult in Vegetative/Comatose State — No specific statutory provision for appointment of guardian for an adult in a comatose/vegetative state — High Court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to mould relief and issue directions to meet the peculiar requirements of such a case, especially when existing statutory remedies are India Law Library Docid # 2427486
(163) BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. KAP SINHA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Civil Contempt – Wilful Disobedience – Definition – Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience to a court order; it’s not merely non-compliance – The court must find that disobedience was wilful and intentional – If non-compliance resulted from compelling circumstances, the alleged contemnor may not be punished – Contempt proceedings are not execution proceedings; the focus is on the wilfulness of the disobedience, not simply failure to India Law Library Docid # 2427487
(164) BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 2(24) and 28 — Capital receipt vs. Revenue receipt — Sales Tax Incentive — Subsidies/incentives provided by State Government schemes to encourage industrial development in backward areas — “Purpose Test” — If the incentive’s purpose is to facilitate the establishment or expansion of an industrial unit, it is a capital receipt; if its purpose is to enable the business to operate more profitably, it is a revenue receipt — The form or mechanism of payment India Law Library Docid # 2427473
(165) SARAVANA PRASAD Vs. ENDEMOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against interim orders of Arbitral Tribunal — Section 17 — Interim measures by Arbitral Tribunal — Scope of Interference — The High Court, when hearing an appeal under Section 37 against an order passed under Section 17, should not substitute its own view for a reasonable and plausible view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal unless the Tribunal’s view is implausible or untenable. India Law Library Docid # 2427474
(166) ARUNLAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Law — Rape (Section 376 IPC) — Consent — Mental Disability — Effect on Consent — Where the victim has “moderate intellectual disability” and a mental age between 9 and 10 years, her consent to sexual intercourse is not valid and thus the act constitutes rape. The court confirms the trial court’s finding of guilt for rape. India Law Library Docid # 2427416
(167) RENJITH PANNACKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 211, 212, 213, 214, 218, 228, 240 — Charge — Contents of Charge — Distinct Offences — Requirement of separate and distinct charges for each distinct offence — Purpose of framing charge is to provide clear and unambiguous notice to the accused regarding the accusation — Clubbing all offences together without distinct charges and clarity is not in accordance with law — Charge found to be improperly framed, requiring interference and re-framing as per India Law Library Docid # 2427417
(168) BANDLAMUDI SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. BANDLAMUDI KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Findings of Fact — High Court cannot ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of the First Appellate Court, which is the final court of facts. Interference is permissible only if findings are erroneous, contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence, or if vital admissible evidence was not considered, leading to a failure of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2427418
(169) SUPTD.ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH NELLORE Vs. H.S BHATT AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Arbitral Award — Challenge to — Interference by Court — An arbitral award should not be interfered with lightly; only when there is total unreasonableness, error on the face of the record, or misconduct by the arbitrator will the court intervene. The arbitrator is the final arbiter of the dispute, and parties cannot challenge the award merely because the arbitrator’s conclusion differs from their expectation or because they disagree with the appreciation India Law Library Docid # 2427419
(170) SRI R.M. MANJUNATH GOWDA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Bail — Twin conditions — While Section 45 imposes strict conditions for bail in PMLA cases, including satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses, these conditions do not create an absolute bar to bail. The court’s discretion is judicial, not arbitrary, and must maintain a delicate balance, avoiding a mini-trial on merits. The court needs to find only a “genu India Law Library Docid # 2427421
(171) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RUDRA NARAYAN MISHRA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Service Law — Pay Fixation — Running Staff — General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE) — Applicability of Railway Board Establishment (RBE) circularly — Effect of RBE No. 132 of 2006 on pay fixation of running staff appointed through GDCE — The core issue is whether RBE No. 132 of 2006, which clarifies that the 30% pay element for running staff is not admissible for those appointed through GDCE if there are no specific orders to that effect, has India Law Library Docid # 2427423
(172) SHRI VINDHYAVASINI MAA BILAIMATA PUJARI PARISHAD COMMITTEE Vs. VINDHYAVASINI MANDIR TRUST SAMITI THROUGH SO CALLED PRESIDENT SATISH RAO PAWAR @ BOBY[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Dismissal of Writ Petition — A writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Revenue Board’s order was dismissed where the petitioner lacked locus standi, as they were not a party to the original revision proceedings before the Board, and the challenged order was already based on a conclusive civil court judgment. India Law Library Docid # 2427475
(173) UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs. DINESH TATI[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 306 (now Section 343 BNSS) — Tender of Pardon to Accomplice — Object and Applicability — The primary objective of tendering pardon is to prevent offenders from escaping punishment in heinous cases due to lack of evidence, by obtaining testimony from an accomplice. The grant of pardon is not based on the accomplice’s culpability but on the necessity to secure evidence that would otherwise be unobtainable. Pardon can be tendered if India Law Library Docid # 2427476
(174) PRATIMA XAXA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Mutation — Effect of — Mutation entries in revenue records are for fiscal and administrative purposes only, and do not create, extinguish, or transfer title to immovable property. They merely enable the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay land revenue. India Law Library Docid # 2427477
(175) SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT INDORE Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 409, 120-B — Sanction for prosecution — Rejection of sanction — Quashing of order — High Court’s review of rejected sanction — A sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind to the facts and evidence to determine if prosecution is warranted — The authority’s decision to grant or refuse sanction should not be influenced by external pressure or extraneous considerations — If the India Law Library Docid # 2427470
(176) KAMLI AND OTHERS Vs. IQBAL HUSSAIN[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 02-07-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Sections 17 & 49 — Admissibility of unregistered sale deed — Collateral purpose — A document (sale deed) mandatorily required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act cannot be admitted in evidence if unregistered, especially when the suit seeks reliefs of declaration and injunction. The proviso to Section 49 allows an unregistered document to be admitted for collateral purposes, but this purpose must be independent of and divisible from the main transac India Law Library Docid # 2427471
(177) 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
(178) 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
(179) 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
(180) 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