India Law Library

User not Logged..

India Law Library AI
Lex AI Legal Document Intelligence Assistant

Latest Cases

First
«
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
»
Last

(801) RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Public Interest Litigation — Encroachment on public land — Scope of interference — Petitioner filed PIL alleging illegal encroachments on the land of various Mandi Parishads across the State — Material on record demonstrated that the Managing Director of Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Board had already initiated an inquiry and issued specific directions for removal of unauthorized temporary structures — Held, High Court is not inclined to examine the
India Law Library Docid # 2455471

(802) SHUBHAM SAINI AND ANR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Quashing of FIR — Allegation of sexual relations on false promise of marriage — Compromise between parties — Parties were majors, previously engaged, and their physical relations were consensual — Subsequent misunderstandings resulted in lodging of the FIR — During proceedings, parties amicably resolved disputes voluntarily and filed a joint compounding application — Complainant expressed un
India Law Library Docid # 2455473

(803) WASEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Completion of investigation without arrest — Sections 115(2), 190, 309(6), 324(4) and 352 — Applicant cooperated with the Investigating Officer throughout the investigation and did not misuse interim protection granted earlier — Investigating Officer submitted the police report/charge-sheet without effecting arrest — Held, since the charge-sheet has already been submitted without arresting the applicant and investigation is concluded, no
India Law Library Docid # 2455474

(804) ASHUTOSH SAKLANI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Dispute arising from car loan — Applicant cleared entire outstanding loan amount and obtained closure certificate from bank — FIR lodged by bank and trial pending since 2014 without framing of charges — Applicant granted liberty to file discharge application before Trial Court within two weeks — Trial Court directed to decide application on
India Law Library Docid # 2455476

(805) M/S. UTKAL SUPPLIERS, GANJAM Vs. VEER SUENDRA SAI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, BURLA, SAMBALPUR AND ANOTHER[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 — Review Jurisdiction — Nature and Scope — Substantive review must be decided within the parameters set forth under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC — Review is not an appeal in disguise or a second lease of life to rehear the matter on merits or rewrite the judgment — Power of review cannot be exercised to rehear and correct an erroneous decision or substitute a view — Review is an exception to the finality of judicial
India Law Library Docid # 2455560

(806) HARAPRASANNA TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 — Scope of review jurisdiction — Review is not an appeal in disguise nor a second innings to rehear concluded issues on merits — Review powers are strictly circumscribed to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other analogous sufficient reason — A review cannot be sought merely to repeat old and overruled arguments or to substitute a view — Substantive review must strictly satisfy t
India Law Library Docid # 2455568

(807) ARCHANA SAMAL Vs. BISWA RANJAN MAHAPATRA[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 24 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Matrimonial dispute — Transfer petition — Convenience of wife — Wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar where her restitution of conjugal rights petition was pending — Held, cardinal principle under Section 24 is that ends of justice demand transfer — In matrimonial matters, courts must evaluate economic standing, social strata, and living conditions of spouses — Given prevailing socio-
India Law Library Docid # 2455569

(808) M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RENUPRABHA MAHARANA AND OTHERS[ORISSA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Inherent power to recall exhibit or expunge evidence — Non-genuine document produced before Tribunal — Claimants filed application to recall Exhibit 17, an alleged fraudulent income tax document, and requested disposal on other assessment records — Held, in the absence of any express statutory provision in the CPC to recall an exhibit or expunge evidence, the Claims Tribunal in seisin of the proceedings can exercise its inh
India Law Library Docid # 2455573

(809) ANIL SRIPAD RAO Vs. K. ANITHA, TAHSILDAR, MOINABAD MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(b) and 12 — Scope of contempt proceedings — Delayed compliance — Direction to consider application under Form VI-A of ROR Act within three months — Respondent rejected the application after delay due to COVID-19 pandemic duties, missing records, and administrative restructuring — Held, contempt jurisdiction is strictly limited to examining whether there was willful, deliberate, and intentional disobedience — Mere delay in compliance, satisfactorily expla
India Law Library Docid # 2455593

(810) SHRI SHAILESH DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 169(1) — Modes of service — Power to choose mode of service — Duty of fairness — Order merely uploaded on GST common portal — Tax authorities must exercise statutory administrative powers reasonably and fairly — Where assessee had ceased manufacturing operations for several years, department ought to have communicated adjudication order through alternative modes such as email, speed post, or registered post — Uploading order on the common
India Law Library Docid # 2455605

(811) SHRI PRASANTA DEB @ RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Conviction of husband for wife's murder inside matrimonial home — Relatives and immediate neighbours consistently testified to persistent financial demands, physical torture, previous criminal complaints, and an intense quarrel heard on the night preceding the occurrence — Medical evidence confirmed homicidal asphyxia by manual strangulation — Minor denials by defence did not shake prosecution case — Prosecution successfu
India Law Library Docid # 2455615

(812) KHUSHBOO KUMARI @ KHUSHBOO DEVI Vs. ABHISHEK VERMA @ CHUNNU JEE[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-b) — Dissolution of marriage — Desertion — Continuous separation preceding petition — Parties were married in December 2007 — Wife deserted the husband in December 2008 and matrimonial suit was instituted in 2013 — Evidence on record established complete desertion by the wife for a period exceeding two years immediately preceding presentation of the petition — Spouses lived separately without cohabitation for nearly 18 years — Decree of divorce granted
India Law Library Docid # 2455617

(813) THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANJEET KUMAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Well settled that although the appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate the evidence, an order of acquittal reinforces and strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused — If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court — Interference is warranted only
India Law Library Docid # 2455618

(814) MRS. MEIRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Sections 3, 4 and 4(h) — Cancellation of settlement — Jurisdiction of Collector — Proceedings under Section 4(h) are ancillary consequences triggered only after an estate officially vests in the State under Section 3 — Collector's power under Section 4(h) is strictly confined to inquiring into and annulling transfers made after 01.01.1946 to evade the Act — Where the initial settlement was made by the ex-landlord in 1941, as affirmed by an inquiry committee, Sectio
India Law Library Docid # 2455623

(815) DR. BIPIN KUMAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Service Law — Early Performance Appraisal Report (EPAR) — Reduction of Grading — Arbitrary Downgrading — Petitioner was awarded high marks by Administrative Reporting Authority, Technical Reporting Authority, and Technical Reviewing Authority — Administrative Reviewing Authority reduced the marks without basis or material, which was affirmed by Accepting Authority without application of mind — Representation against such reduction was rejected without assigning reasons — Action of respondents he
India Law Library Docid # 2455630

(816) SHANKAR SINGH @ SHANKAR KUMAR SINGH @ SHANKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 and Section 190 — Cognizance in matrimonial disputes — Application of judicial mind — Principles reiterated — Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused — High Court must examine whether allegations in a matrimonial dispute disclose a specific role attributable to the relatives sought to be prosecuted — Permitting criminal proceedings to continue against relatives of the
India Law Library Docid # 2455637

(817) CICL X Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Bail to a juvenile — Heinous offence — Irrelevance of nature and gravity of offence — Under Section 12, bail to a juvenile is a rule and refusal is an exception — Section 12 overrides the Code of Criminal Procedure and applies to all juveniles, including those aged 16 to 18 years accused of heinous offences tried as adults — Seriousness or heinous nature of the alleged offence is not a valid ground to refuse bail — Denia
India Law Library Docid # 2455653

(818) CICL, A1 AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[PATNA HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12 — Bail to child in conflict with law — Mandatory nature — Statutory exceptions — Section 12 overrides the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishing bail as a rule and refusal an exception — Bail can be denied strictly upon three statutory grounds under the proviso to Section 12(1) based on tangible material — Nature, gravity, or heinousness of the alleged offence and the juvenile's age, including children between 16 and 18
India Law Library Docid # 2455655

(819) RAJESHWARI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. HARI SHANKAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 06-10-2026
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 34 — Maintainability of declaratory suit — Proviso — Omission to seek further relief — Plaintiff sought declaration denying defendants' legal status as widow and legitimate sons, alleging fraudulent revenue entries regarding suit property — Plaintiff omitted to seek consequential relief regarding property or cancellation of mutation entries — Held, declaratory relief cannot be granted indirectly to displace entries affecting property without claiming consequen
India Law Library Docid # 2455708

(820) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THRU. ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ROHIT SINGH Vs. SHIVAJI SINGH[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 06-10-2026
Contract Law — Standard Form Contract — Adhesion Contracts — Unfair and Unreasonable Clause — Clause 8.2 of Lucknow Development Authority's brochure stipulated that upon withdrawal after allotment, twenty percent of the registration amount would be deducted and the residue refunded without interest — Held, Clause 8.2 is ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable — Given the disparity in bargaining power between the parties, courts will not enforce unconscionable dotted-line clauses imposed by
India Law Library Docid # 2455729

First
«
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
»
Last