India Law Library

User not Logged..

India Law Library AI
Lex AI Legal Document Intelligence Assistant

Latest Cases

First
«
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
»
Last

(601) ANKITKUMAR JAYANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 22 — Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Cognizance of offence — Competence of FIR — Section 22 bars the Court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under the MMDR Act or Rules framed thereunder except on a written complaint by an authorized officer — Magistrate cannot take cognizance of MMDR offences on a mere poli
India Law Library Docid # 2456309

(602) DESAVATHU TULASI VARALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF AP AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Service Law — Transfer of Teachers — Competing claims for transfer — Dropping of disciplinary proceedings — Vacancy arising subsequent to general transfer — Both petitioners, working as School Assistants (Social Studies), sought transfer to the same school on spouse grounds — One petitioner was previously denied transfer due to a charge memorandum which was subsequently dropped, while the other petitioner sought accommodation against a vacancy created by retirement after transfer counselling con
India Law Library Docid # 2456365

(603) M/S. SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MODEM RICE MILL, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM, PALAKODERU MANDAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. KURMALA NAGARAJU @ NAGA VENKATA SATYANARAYA MURTHY S/O. KURMALA GANGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. Vs. CTO BHEEMAVARAM 2 ORS, BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-ANDHRA PRADESH.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — Section 5(3) and Section 5(4) — Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 — Rule 12(7) and Rule 12(10)(a) — Submission of Form 'H' — Prescribed time limit — Time limit under Rule 12(7) allowing submission of Form 'C' and Form 'F' within three months, with power to extend on sufficient cause, does not apply to Form 'H' — Rule 12(10)(a) is a specific and self-contained provision mandating that Form 'H' must be furnished up to the time of assessment by
India Law Library Docid # 2456370

(604) SHAIK MUNEER BASHA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 25 and 30 — Anticipatory bail — Inadmissibility of co-accused confession — Petitioner was implicated as Accused No.7 for cheating, conspiracy, and gaming offences solely based on confessions of co-accused alleging instigation to organise an illegal lottery game — Confession made to the police by an accused is inherently inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used under Section 3
India Law Library Docid # 2456382

(605) N SREE REVATHI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438] — Pre-arrest bail — Concurrent jurisdiction — Maintainability of direct application to High Court — Litigants must ordinarily approach the Sessions Court in the first instance before seeking pre-arrest bail from the High Court — While concurrent jurisdiction exists, the High Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction directly only where an applicant establishes a special case or extrao
India Law Library Docid # 2456383

(606) PAKALAPATI NARASIMHA RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 480 and 483 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) — Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 — Sections 21 and 23 — Regular bail — Entitlement — Petitioner/Accused No.10, aged 22 years, was accused of receiving Rs. 15,00,000 in his bank account and transferring it to prime accused — Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were already enlarged on bail — Petitioner was in judicial custody for 49 days — Considering the petit
India Law Library Docid # 2456384

(607) POCHA VENKATA REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Scope of writ jurisdiction — Disputed questions of fact — Contractual monetary claims — Petitioner sought release of pending payments for canal lining work under Telugu Ganga Project, relying on photographs and departmental letters to show partial completion — State contended that no item of work was completed in full shape as per the agreement, precluding measurement or bill preparation — Held, the High Court under Article 226 cannot conduct a detaile
India Law Library Docid # 2456394

(608) ARIKATLA RAJESH REDDY @ RAJESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 08-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 353, 349 and 350 — Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty — Essential ingredients — Accused stopped by police officer during duty and allegedly threw the officer aside and fled without showing vehicle documents — Held, mere use of the expression 'threw him', without material particulars showing intentional use of force to cause injury, fear or annoyance, does not establish criminal force under Section 350 — Admitted failure to p
India Law Library Docid # 2456399

(609) APPA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 394 — Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery — Non-recovery of stolen articles — Conviction unsustainable — The conviction under Section 394 IPC cannot be sustained where the allegation of robbery is not supported by recovery or seizure of the allegedly stolen property — Absence of purchase receipts or independent evidence establishing ownership, identity, or value of the articles, coupled with the failure to connect scattered beads found at the spot to
India Law Library Docid # 2454905

(610) V. PON. PANEERSELVAM Vs. S. REGUPATHY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 81(1) and 86(1) — Mandatory requirement of personal presentation — Non-compliance — Dismissal at threshold — Presentation of an election petition by the petitioner in person under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a mandatory requirement — Compliance with Section 81 is not a mere procedural formality, but directly impacts the maintainability of the petition; any defect in this regard is incurable — Under
India Law Library Docid # 2454906

(611) M/S. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 28(i) & Section 4 — Revenue vs. Capital Receipt — Electricity/Power Subsidy — Application of the "Purpose Test" — The character of a subsidy receipt in the hands of an assessee must be determined by applying the "Purpose Test" — The point of time of payment, source, and form of the subsidy are not decisive; the determinative factor is the object and purpose sought to
India Law Library Docid # 2454907

(612) ABHISHEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — Ingredients — Seat and gravity of injury not sole determinant — Attempt to strike vital parts warded off defensively — To attract Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that a fatal or life-threatening bodily injury must actually be sustained — The section distinguishes between the act of the accused and its result; the determinative criterion is whether the act was executed with the requisite intention or knowledge — Intention or knowledg
India Law Library Docid # 2454908

(613) THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. NANDESHWAR KUMAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 — Rule 8(a) — Eligibility Criteria — Requirement of NCTE Recognized Qualification — Date of Determination — The eligibility of a candidate for appointment to a public post must be adjudged on the last date of submission of application forms or, at best, by the date of appointment — Where recruitment is
India Law Library Docid # 2454909

(614) M/S JK PAPER LTD AND OTHERS Vs. BIPINCHANDRA NATWARLAL SHAH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-10-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Powers and Duty of First Appellate Court — Scope of Judicial Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution — An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and the first appellate court is a court of fact and law required to decide the case by re-appreciating evidence, giving reasons, and dealing with all issues of
India Law Library Docid # 2454910

(615) BRIJ LAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-10-2026
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 107 and 117 — Nature and scope of preventive proceedings — Distinction from punitive proceedings — Proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 CrPC are preventive in character, aimed at preventing breach of peace and repetition of similar incidents, whereas registration of an FIR and filing of a charge-sheet in respect of a criminal offence are punitive in nature, aimed at punishing the offender — The objective and purpose of preventive proceedings u
India Law Library Docid # 2454939

(616) RAJ SHARMA (BHARTI) Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-10-2026
J&K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 — Section 18 — Constitution of India — Article 19(1)(f) and Constitutional Right to Property — Exchange of alternate land in lieu of cash compensation — Obligation to deliver actual physical possession — The predecessor-in-interest of appellants opted for alternate land, but physical possession of 4 kanals was never delivered due to Army occupation — Held, an acquisition award is not satisfied until complete physical possession of all allotted land is delivere
India Law Library Docid # 2454950

(617) ROMELU RAM Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-10-2026
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8 — Preventive detention — Grounds of detention — Lack of material and non-application of mind — Petitioner was branded as an overground worker of banned outfits and a history sheeter without any criminal case ever registered against him or any specific outfit identified — Dossier merely relied upon two preventive proceedings under Section 129 of BNSS without any final order under Section 136, and two hearsay daily diary entries — Detention based
India Law Library Docid # 2454951

(618) ROHIT SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 156(3), 397(2) and 482 — Revisional bar — Maintainability of petition under Section 482 — Order directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is an interlocutory order against which a revision petition is barred under Section 397(2) CrPC — Accused has no right of hearing at that stage — However, where the order is alleged to have been passed without jurisdiction or in disregard of mandatory legal requirements, inherent powers under Section 482
India Law Library Docid # 2454917

(619) ANKUSH SHARMA Vs. U. T. OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-10-2026
Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 — Section 471 — Using as genuine a forged document — Essential ingredients — To constitute an offence under Section 471, the prosecution must establish that the document is forged, that the accused used it as genuine, that the accused knew or had reason to believe it was forged, and that the accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly — Mere production of a fake document without establishing that the accused possessed the requisite knowledge or reason to believe it was fo
India Law Library Docid # 2454928

(620) VIDHYA RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-10-2026
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Section 23 — Condonation of delay — Beneficial legislation — Delay of 210 days in filing appeal — Appellants were poor and illiterate persons from an economically weaker section who suffered paucity of funds to obtain timely legal advice — Held, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation and the economic hardships faced by the claimants, a liberal approach must be adopted — Appellants successfully established suffic
India Law Library Docid # 2455095

First
«
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
»
Last