(801) BALMER LAWRIE VAN LEER LTD Vs. SUNIL KUMAR PRAJAPATI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Industrial Dispute — Quashing of Reference Order — Scope of Writ Jurisdiction — A reference order made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being an administrative act, should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is patently absurd or without any factual foundation — Disputed questions of fact and India Law Library Docid # 2436520
(802) MAHESH SAH AND ANOTHER Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Mutation Proceedings — Scope of Interference — Writ Petition challenging orders of Tehsildar and Commissioner in mutation proceedings dismissed as not maintainable under Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction is only attracted in cases of total absence of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice — In present case, India Law Library Docid # 2436521
(803) ANAND SINGH Vs. CHAMPA DEVI[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) — Divorce — Mental Cruelty post-Compromise — Parties entered into a compromise in 2017 after a previous divorce petition was filed, agreeing to separate residence and maintenance — Respondent's subsequent conduct, including repeatedly visiting the husband's workplace (restaurant) and using abusive/insulting language in India Law Library Docid # 2436522
(804) NARENDRA RAMPRAKASH PODAR AND OTHERS Vs. PRAGNESH NARAYAN PODAR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) — Section 22 — Change Report — Enquiry requirement — Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) — Change Report regarding deletion of one Trustee (due to medical incapacity) and appointment of a new Trustee, and change of Trust address — ACC allowed the Change Report without recording reasons and without a detailed inquiry as mandated by Section 22 India Law Library Docid # 2436990
(805) SHRI. RAMUGHRAHA RAMCHARITA TIWARI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HIERS) Vs. ALAKNANDA GOPALKRISHNA BADALE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 115 — Revision Application — Scope of Judicial Review — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 is limited; it is not expected to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its findings for those of the Appellate Court unless the findings are perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2436991
(806) TANVI AND ANOTHER Vs. ABHINEET[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — Application for registration of FIR — Discretion of Magistrate — When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if facts disclose a cognizable offence; the Magistrate has discretion — If the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is justified in forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) as an alternative to taking cognizance, especially when such a India Law Library Docid # 2436923
(807) NISHANT Vs. ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66F — Punishment for cyber terrorism — Mens Rea — Essential ingredient for conviction under Section 66F(1)(A) and (1)(B) is "intent to threaten the unity" or "knowingly or intentionally" obtaining access to restricted information — Prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea, especially since the alleged copying of data occurred years before the communication with foreign India Law Library Docid # 2437108
(808) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MARUTI BHIKAJI BORKAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference by Appellate Court — Appellate Court must review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence, but must not interfere if two reasonable conclusions are possible — Interference is justified only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or where only the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible beyond a India Law Library Docid # 2437172
(809) ROSHAN JAYWANT PAGARE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Criminal Law — Murder and Attempted Murder (IPC Sections 302, 324, 143, 147, 148, 307) — Appreciation of Evidence — Conviction solely based on testimony of injured eye-witnesses — Reliability of injured eye-witnesses' testimony (PW4 and PW5) — The evidence of interested eye-witnesses, particularly where background suggests serious previous enmity and the witnesses' conduct appears unnatural (failing to promptly name assailants to police/doctor despite knowing them, coupled with delay in FIR regi India Law Library Docid # 2437173
(810) SUMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. MEENAKSHI AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Enquiry — Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered when deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — The court cannot examine evidence or the merits of the controversy, nor consider submissions made in the written statement or other materials provided by the defendant. India Law Library Docid # 2436921
(811) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Suit was decreed ex-parte against the State (Petitioners) on 21.01.2017 — Petitioners opted to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was ultimately dismissed on 13.09.2019 by the High Court in revision, upholding the ex-parte judgment — Petitioners subsequently filed an appeal against the original judgment on 14.10.2021, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay — Limitation for appeal started either from India Law Library Docid # 2436922
(812) TENNETI MEENAKSHI RAJASEKHAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — Sections 452(1) and 461(1) — Unauthorized Construction — Complaint by neighbor — Deviations from Sanctioned Plan — Compounding and Regularization — Where construction deviations are claimed to be minor (less than 10% of constructed area) and within permissible limits for compounding under GOMs.No.119, the authorities must first determine the extent of deviation before ordering demolition — Petitioners (builders) India Law Library Docid # 2436118
(813) ABDUL AZIZ PEER Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 01-12-2025 Writ Petition — Quashing of Administrative Order — Challenge to Order of Deputy Commissioner directing seizure of all illegal Rice Husking Machines, Bandsaw and Tractor Based Machines — Petitioner, operating a Movable Tractor Mounted Rice Husking Machine, claimed order was without jurisdiction and interfered with his right to trade — Petitioner relied on NOCs/permissions from State Pollution Control Board and India Law Library Docid # 2436236
(814) VICTIM X Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 — Rule 12(4) and Annexure-I — Compensation/Relief Amount to Victim — Entitlement — Victim turning hostile resulting in acquittal of accused — Where the victim (petitioner), alleging offences including gang rape (Section 376-D India Law Library Docid # 2436291
(815) SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-12-2025 Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Exercise of jurisdiction by High Court — High Court, while refusing to quash an FIR, cannot simultaneously grant blanket protection from arrest (or "no coercive steps") to the accused until the filing of the charge sheet or completion of investigation — Such action is self-contradictory, impermissible, and causes grave prejudice to the investigation. India Law Library Docid # 2437425
(816) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. MANOHAR SINGH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 225, 226 — Judicial Review — General Security Force Court (GSFC) Proceedings — Scope and Exercise of Power — The scope of judicial review over proceedings of military courts and GSFCs is narrow and supervisory; the High Court does not sit in appeal, re-appreciate evidence, or substitute factual conclusions — Interference is justified only where proceedings suffer from jurisdictional infirmity, perversity, complete absence of evidence, India Law Library Docid # 2437547
(817) SURAJ V SUKUMAR @ SURAJ PALAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-12-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Sections 23 and 23(4) — Disclosure of identity of child victim — Journalist uploading news on YouTube Channel; disclosure resulting from pictures/videos of family members accompanying the report — Appellant-journalist acted to support mother falsely accused by father — Subsequent finding that mother was truthful and allegations against her were false — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Supreme Court India Law Library Docid # 2437587
(818) PATNAM SHAKUTALA AND ANOTHER Vs. R. BABU RAO AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 01-12-2025 Settlement and Compromise — Dispute Resolution — Amicable settlement of long-pending property dispute (challenge to a 1968 Sale Deed) through mediation — Supreme Court directed parties to mediation before a Former Judge of the Court after over two decades of litigation — Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2025 accepted and made part of the court order, binding the parties — Appeals disposed of in terms India Law Library Docid # 2437589
(819) PRIYA SUMAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Constitutional Law — Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) — Protection to Live-in Couples — Two adults (female aged 18, male aged 19) seeking protection from family members to live together in a live-in relationship until the male attains the marriageable age (21 years) — The core issue is the protection of life and liberty, not the validity of the relationship — Constitutional Fundamental Right India Law Library Docid # 2437770
(820) RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 01-12-2025 Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 — Rules of 1996 — Compassionate Appointment — Termination of Service — Suppression of Material Facts — Appointment obtained through fraud — Petitioner failing to disclose that his mother (working in UCO Bank) and step-brother (in Government employment) were already employed at the time of India Law Library Docid # 2437771