(381) SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SARAVANA GLOBAL ENERGY LTD[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(2)(a)(iii), 28(3) and 34(2A) — Setting aside Arbitral Award — Loss Assessment Basis (Reinstatement Value/Market Value) — Interpretation of Policy Terms — Arbitrator's finding that the Industrial All Risk (IAR) policy permitted loss assessment partly on Reinstatement Value (RIV) and partly on Market Value (MV) basis is in total disregard to the India Law Library Docid # 2438111
(382) ARULMIGHU PAPPI CHETTY AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR and CE Act, 1959) — Section 70(1) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — First Appeal against dismissal of Statutory Suit — Character of Religious Institution — Claim for declaration that 'Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty’s Charities' is a Private Institution and does not come under the purview of the HR and CE Act — Prior Proceedings — Institution previously declared a "specific endowment" under the Madras HR and CE India Law Library Docid # 2438112
(383) K.NATRAYAN AND OTHERS Vs. G.RAJALINGAM AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Public Employment—Selection Process—Eligibility Criteria (Crucial Date)—Sanitary Inspector (SI) recruitment notification (2017) prescribed SI certificate from Gandhigram Rural Institute (GRI) as essential qualification—Subsequent selection process (2024) and government order (2022) declared PG Diploma from Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Institute equivalent to SI certificate—Candidates who acquired qualification (equivalence declaration) after the 2017 notification and India Law Library Docid # 2438113
(384) THE MANAGEMENT, COLACUMBY TEA MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (Gratuity Rules) — Rule 11(5) — Proviso — Application to set aside Ex-parte Order/Dismissal for Default — Limitation — The 30-day period prescribed in the proviso to Rule 11(5) for seeking to set aside an ex-parte order or an order of dismissal for default is directory, not mandatory — This rule is procedural in nature and, given that the Gratuity Act is a social beneficial legislation, inflexibility would defeat the Act's objective India Law Library Docid # 2438114
(385) WORKMEN OF MRF LIMITED Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF MRF LIMITED AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Applicability against Private Bodies — Writ petition seeking mandamus against private company (Management) regarding payment of health insurance premium for non-ESI workers based on wage settlements — Held, relief under Article 226, being a public law remedy, is generally available only against the State, its instrumentalities, or a body/person discharging a public or statutory duty — The term "person" under Article India Law Library Docid # 2438115
(386) K.JAYARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Human Rights Violation — State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) — Police Excess — Quashing of SHRC recommendations — Police officers (Respondents) attempting to arrest Complainant (accused in a pending case under IPC Section 307) at Tiruchirappalli Cantonment Police Station — Incident resulting in scuffle captured on CCTV camera and Complainant sustaining injuries — SHRC finding that while police action to arrest was initially lawful, they exceeded limits and used excessive India Law Library Docid # 2438116
(387) M.A. HAMEED Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(g) — Right to practice law — An advocate who has surrendered their Sanad and received benefits under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act can seek withdrawal of surrender and re-registration upon refunding the amount with interest — Refusal to permit re-registration is an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right. India Law Library Docid # 2438243
(388) M/S. SRIDEVI HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY [INDIA] LIMITED AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 — Section 33 — Impounding of documents — Order for impounding under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, found to be ex facie void as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the concerned party. India Law Library Docid # 2438244
(389) YALLAPPA Vs. SMT. TANGAMMA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 34 — Declaration of title — Maintainability of suit without claiming possession — A suit for declaration of title and injunction is maintainable even without claiming possession if the plaintiff is found to be in constructive possession and the defendant's possession is only as an agent, caretaker, or labourer. The trial court's dismissal of the suit on the ground of not seeking India Law Library Docid # 2438250
(390) RAJIYABI AND OTHERS Vs. MAKTUMBI AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Land dispute — Plaintiffs claiming ownership based on a sale deed executed in 1957 in favour of their father, who was a minor at the time, represented by his father (Nabisab) as guardian. Defendants claiming ownership based on a partition and gift allegedly made by Nabisab during his lifetime. Both lower courts decreed the suit in favour of the India Law Library Docid # 2438251
(391) KESHAVARAO AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL SUKUR AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Substantial Questions of Law Framed — Right of Pre-emption — Application of Mahomedan Law — Compliance with Formalities (Talab-i-Mowasibat and Talab-i-Ishhad) — Suit for Declaratory Relief and Mandatory Injunction. India Law Library Docid # 2438252
(392) CHANDERAKANT AND OTHERS Vs. GYANOBA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Wrong description in Sale Deed — A false description does not vitiate a transaction if the property can still be identified. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 95 — Extrinsic evidence can be used to clarify a document if the language is plain but unmeaning in reference to existing facts, or to show it was used in a peculiar sense. This principle allows for the rectification of India Law Library Docid # 2438253
(393) SMT. SHARANAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. SHARANAGOUDA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 14 — Property of Hindu female — If possessed by a Hindu female, she is deemed to be the full owner — Even if property is acquired by gift, Will, decree or award, she remains full owner unless the terms prescribe a restricted estate — Section 14(1) has widest possible amplitude to include ownership even without physical possession, especially when a right to maintenance exists. India Law Library Docid # 2438255
(394) K. S. DINACHANDRAN Vs. SHYLA JOSEPH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved India Law Library Docid # 2437048
(395) OBALAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BHIHANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible India Law Library Docid # 2437049
(396) SHAIK SHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same India Law Library Docid # 2437050
(397) M/S ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED (APGENCO) Vs. M/S TECPRO SYSTEMS LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial India Law Library Docid # 2437051
(398) LAGUNA RESORT PVT. LTD. Vs. CONCEPT HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 and Section 43(4) — Limitation for commencement of fresh proceedings after award is set aside — Exclusion of time spent in previous arbitration proceedings — Scope and Applicability of Section 43(4) — Previous arbitration (under Evergreen Agreement of 2011) partly set aside by High Court on grounds of jurisdiction (Award seeking adjudication of claims for period 1 April 2009 to 11 March 2011 not covered by 2011 India Law Library Docid # 2437255
(399) DILIP GOUR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 6 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault) r/w Section 42 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(k) — Conviction and Sentence — Appeal from jail against conviction for sexual assault on a minor, deaf and dumb victim — Evidence of victim (PW.5) recorded with the help of an interpreter supported by circumstantial evidence India Law Library Docid # 2437237
(400) SAHAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 — Rule 6(1)(a) — Suspension pending departmental proceedings — Duration of suspension — The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if, within this period, the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent employee — If the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension — Where neither the chargesheet was India Law Library Docid # 2437238