ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(941) IN RE: COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 —Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees’ Compensation Act) — Unclaimed Compensation Deposits — Judicial Concern and Suo Motu Action — Large sums of compensation amounts, awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, are lying unclaimed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts/Commissioners across various states, depriving successful claimants of their rightful dues —ecognizing the gravity of the situa
India Law Library Docid # 2424922

(942) ANGADI CHANDRANNA Vs. SHANKAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Sections 100 & 103 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Substantial Question of Law vs. Finding of Fact — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is confined to entertaining appeals involving a substantial question of law, which must be precisely framed — Re-appreciation of evidence or interference with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court (the final court of fact) is impermissible, unless such findings are shown to be perverse
India Law Library Docid # 2424923

(943) BARLA RAM REDDY AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1) — Market Value — Determination Principles — Sale Exemplars — Market value for land acquisition must be determined as on the date of the Section 4 notification, representing the price a willing, informed buyer would pay to a willing, informed seller in an open market transaction, considering the land’s condition and potentiality — Comparable sale instances are the primary guide, provided they satisfy requirements of being genuine, proximate in time and l
India Law Library Docid # 2424924

(944) AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Failure to Put Incriminating Evidence (Dying Declarations) — Prejudice — Curability and Delay — The failure of the trial court to put material incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, specifically dying declarations (whether formally recorded or orally made to witnesses), to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC is a serious irregularity This omission denies the accused an opportunity to e
India Law Library Docid # 2424925

(945) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAMINENI HOSPITALS Vs. PEDDI NARAYANA SWAMI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Concurrent Findings — Scope of Appeal — Where both the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), based on appreciation of evidence and medical records, have returned concurrent findings holding a hospital and its doctor medically negligent, the Supreme Court will generally affirm such findings unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to established legal principl
India Law Library Docid # 2424926

(946) DALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. KRISAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Arbitrability of Disputes — Scope of Judicial Review Post-Amendments (2015 & 2019) — Kompetenz-Kompetenz — Following the legislative amendments of 2015 and 2019, the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 8 of the Act at the referral stage is extremely limited — The court’s role is primarily to conduct a prima facie review to ascertain the existence of a valid arbitration agreement — Issues relating to the arbitrability of the dispute are, a
India Law Library Docid # 2425084

(947) HARYANA AGRO-INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. Vs. M/S. DEVI DAYAL SACHIN KUMAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Contract Act, 1872 — Arbitration Claim — Bar of Limitation.

Arbitration proceedings initiated significantly beyond the limitation period prescribed both within the governing agreement and under the general law of limitation are liable to be rejected as time-barred — An arbitral award dismissing a claim on the ground of limitation, where the delay is undisputed and substantial is generally not liable to be interf
India Law Library Docid # 2425085

(948) HABEEN ALIAS HABIN ALIAS HABIB Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 [(as invoked in the order)] — Regular Bail — Factors for Grant — Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan & Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 / IPC S. 120-B. - In exercising jurisdiction invoked under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail concerning offences under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan & Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (Sections 3/13(1), 8/13(3)) and Section 120-B IPC, the Court considered the cumulative effect of several factors: (i) the period of c
India Law Library Docid # 2425086

(949) RAHAMATHULLA Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Constitution of India — Articles 32, 142, 20(2) — Multiple FIRs/Prosecutions arising from Single Speech — Clubbing and Transfer — Where multiple FIRs are registered in different jurisdictions arising out of the very same alleged hate speech/incident, allowing multiple trials and prosecutions would lead to serious anomalies, potential conflicting decisions, and multiplicity of proceedings, which is not expedient in the interest of justice — In such cases, invoking powers under Article 32 read wit
India Law Library Docid # 2425196

(950) M/S J N REAL ESTATE Vs. SHAILENDRA PRADHAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit — Necessary and Proper Party — A party is considered necessary if no effective decree can be passed in their absence — A party is proper if, though not necessary, their presence enables the court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit — A court has the discretion under O1 R10(2) to implead a person found to be a
India Law Library Docid # 2425290

(951) JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Act, 1982 — Implementation — Non-Notification of Authority — Stay Order: The Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Act, 1982, despite being enacted in October 1982, was never effectively brought
India Law Library Docid # 2425292

(952) ECOSAFE INFRAPROJECTS LLP, THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER MR. SAMANVAY PARASHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (RMMCR 2017) — Rules 9(1) proviso, 16(3), 21(6) — E-auction Notice — Period of Lease — Commencement Date — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Alleged Ambiguity — An e-auction notice clause specifying the period of a mining lease for mineral bajri (river sand) as five years commencing from the date of registration of the lease deed is not vague, ambiguous, or uncertain — This clause is perfectly aligned with the statutory scheme under RMMCR 2017, specifi
India Law Library Docid # 2425384

(953) NAGAD NARAYAN AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Administrative Law — Principles of Natural Justice — Bias — Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (No one should be a judge in his own cause) — Appellate Authority — Distinction between ‘Post’ and ‘Person’ — Multi-member Body — The principle of nemo judex in causa sua, which prohibits a person from acting as a judge in a matter where they have an interest or have previously acted in a different capacity, applies to the individual decision-maker, not merely the post held — Where rules designate the
India Law Library Docid # 2425385

(954) STATE Vs. JAVED KHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal Against Acquittal — Scope of Interference — Principles — An appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, must adhere to established principles: (i) acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; (ii) evidence must be comprehensively reappreciated; (iii) if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should ordinarily prevail; (iv) if the trial court’s view is legally plausible, mere p
India Law Library Docid # 2425386

(955) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER Vs. LACHU @ LAXMI NARAYAN[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
M.P. Prisoner’s Release on Probation Act, 1954 — Section 2 & Rule 11 (M.P. Prisoner’s Release on Probation Rules, 1964) — Effect of Setting Aside Release Order in LPA — Bonafide Belief of Licence Continuance — Where a writ petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to L.I., was released on probation by a Single Bench order, and this order was subsequently set aside in an L.P.A. directing him to surrender, his continued absence from prison cannot be deemed as part of the period of
India Law Library Docid # 2425533

(956) CUREWIN HYLICO PHARMA PVT. LTD. Vs. CUREWIN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Institution of Suit — Proper Valuation and Court Fees — Pre-institutional Mediation — A commercial suit is considered ‘duly instituted’ only after proper valuation, payment of requisite ad valorem court fees, and, where applicable (if no urgent interim relief is sought), exhaustion of the remedy of pre-institutional mediation as per Section 12-A of the Act — Until these conditions are met, the Commercial Court may not have full jurisdiction to proceed, and summons t
India Law Library Docid # 2425534

(957) SHIVANI AND OTHERS Vs. BHERULAL AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) — Filing of Counter-Claim — After Written Statement — A counter-claim is not barred from being filed merely because the defendant has already filed their written statement — Rule 6-A(1) requires that the cause of action for the counter-claim must have accrued to the defendant before the defendant delivered their defence or before the time limited for delivering the defence expired — The court, in its discretion, may allow a counter-claim to be fil
India Law Library Docid # 2425535

(958) 63 IDEAS INFOLABS PVT. LTD. (TRADENAME NINJAKART) Vs. M/S MORE TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Consideration — An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto — The court cannot consider allegations made by the defendant in their written statement or in the application for rejection itself — If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action, it cannot be rejected under this provisi
India Law Library Docid # 2425536

(959) S.C. NARANG Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75 — Cruelty to Child — Liability of school’s managing committee chairman — Essential ingredient under first part of Section 75 is that accused must have actual charge of, or control over, the victim child — Chairman of the managing committee of a school running classes from KG to 12th standard does not have the actual charge of all the children nor control over every child studying in the school
India Law Library Docid # 2425736

(960) ROSHAN LAL BHARDWAJ Vs. ASHOK SUD AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 14(3)(c), Proviso — Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement for re-building/re-construction — Tenant’s right of re-entry — Scope and limitations — Proviso to Section 14(3)(c) grants right of re-entry only upon mutual agreement on new tenancy terms in a re-built building; requires presence of a re-built building and mutual agreement on new terms of tenancy for invocation — No evidence of
India Law Library Docid # 2425891