ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(961) USHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 145(1)(c) — Suspension of Pradhan — Validity — Allegations of illegalities and irregularities — Preliminary inquiry conducted, show cause notice issued, reply found unsatisfactory, leading to suspension — Suspension order issued following
India Law Library Docid # 2425892

(962) DHARAM PRAKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. BABA JANG BAHADUR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 24(5) — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope under three Rent Control Acts (including H.P. Rent Act) similar, though wording varies — Wider than Section 115 CPC; not as wide as appellate power — Not a cloak for appeal in disguise — Rehearing of original issues impermissible
India Law Library Docid # 2425899

(963) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. USMANKHANJI SAHIDKHANJI DAYMA[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Criminal Appeal (acquittal) — Scope of interference — Appellate Court’s power is coextensive with trial court, can review and reappreciate evidence — No limitation on exercise of such power — Can reach own conclusions on facts and law — Expressions like ‘substantial and compelling reasons’ are ‘flourishes of language’, not curtailing power — However, in acquittal appeals, there is a ‘double presumption’ of innocence in favour of the accused — I
India Law Library Docid # 2426101

(964) MALI KAPURJI VAGHAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1(u) — Appeal from Order — Nature of — Appeal against judgment and decree of appellate court remanding matter to trial court after joining State as party — Scope of appellate review under Order 43 Rule 1(u) involves examining whether the impugned order is erroneous, perverse, or arbitrary and if an error of law was committed in remanding the matter for fresh consideration
India Law Library Docid # 2426102

(965) RAVINDRA NATUBHAI PATEL Vs. SATISHBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 — Section 31(3) & (7) — Election disputes — Panchayat elections — Challenge to election result — Recounting of votes — Statutory framework mandates “inquiry” under Section 31(3) before ordering recount under Section 31(7)(b) — Tribunal’s power to scrutinize and compute votes under Section 31(7)(b) is dependent upon satisfactory inquiry and sufficient material/evidence presented — Bare allegations in election petition or small margin of victory
India Law Library Docid # 2426103

(966) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHANA ARJAN VEDVA VAGHARI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Appeal against acquittal — Principles governing interference — Appellate Court has full power to review evidence but should be reluctant to interfere with acquittal unless conclusions are palpably wrong, based on erroneous law, or lead to grave injustice — Interference is not justified if trial court’s view of evidence is possible, even if appellate court might take a different view
India Law Library Docid # 2426104

(967) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BHUPEN BHUYAN AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeals — Challenge to Judgment and Award — Re-assessment of compensation under Section 166 where claim was converted from Section 166 to Section 163A — Appellant Insurer challenged compensation under various heads including physical pain, earning capacity, disability, and legal representatives’ ability to claim under Section 163A
India Law Library Docid # 2426203

(968) SHANKAR LAL Vs. JUGAL KISHORE AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 22-04-2025
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 15(3) — Procedure for eviction of tenant — Filing of reply, affidavits, and documents — Mandatory vs. Directory — The provision requiring the filing of affidavits and documents along with the reply under Section 15(3) of the Act is directory, not mandatory — This means that while it is generally expected to be followed, strict adherence is not always required,
India Law Library Docid # 2427488

(969) B.S YEDDIYURAPPA Vs. A. ALAM PASHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 17A — Prior Approval for Investigation — Relevant Considerations — What are the specific factors and criteria that the appropriate authority or government must consider under Section 17A of the PC Act before granting approval for the police to initiate any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant concerning acts related to their official functions or duties?
India Law Library Docid # 2424851

(970) ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF Vs. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) — Section 11(3), 11(4) & Section 5A — Powers of Competent Authority — Deemed Conveyance — Nature of Proceedings — Scope of Enquiry — Adjudication of Title — Proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA for issuance of a certificate for deemed conveyance are summary in nature, as indicated by the MOFA Rules (Rule 13(5) prohibiting cross-examination) —
India Law Library Docid # 2424852

(971) ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED) Vs. ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 31 — Approval of Resolution Plan — Effect on Claims — Extinguishment — Binding Nature — ‘Clean Slate’ Principle — Once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under Section 31 of the IBC, it is binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors (including central/state government, local authorities, operational creditors), guarantors, and other stakeholders — Upon such approval, all claims, including
India Law Library Docid # 2424853

(972) LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Review — Power to Modify Award — Severability — The scope of interference by a Court under Section 34 or in appeal under Section 37 is limited — Following the precedent in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1, courts do not possess the power to modify an arbitral award; the “limited remedy” is only to set aside the award, either wholly or partially if severable, under the specified grounds — The Appellate
India Law Library Docid # 2424854

(973) VINOD BOOB Vs. DODBALLAUR SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Special Leave Petition — Disposal by Consent Order — Where a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the complainant challenging the High Court's order setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-respondents under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of a consensual order agreed upon by the parties, detailing specific payment terms.
India Law Library Docid # 2424855

(974) SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 26(1), Proviso and Section 11 — Date for Determination of Market Value — Mandatory Requirement — The proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lays down a mandatory requirement, emphasized by the use of the word ‘shall’, that the market value of land acquired under the Act must be determined as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 — Thi
India Law Library Docid # 2424856

(975) LILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal — Scope of Enquiry — Findings of Trial Court — The jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC is primarily concerned with the suspension of the execution of the sentence pending appeal, based on reasons to be recorded in writing — The court considering an application under S. 389 cannot undertake a merits-based review of the conviction or re-assess and cast doubt upon findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court
India Law Library Docid # 2424857

(976) SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Complete Justice — Sentence Modification — Sentence Already Served — Where subsequent orders of the High Court and Special Court enhancing an initial sentence (from 7 years to life imprisonment) are found erroneous and set aside by the Supreme Court, resulting in the revival of the original lesser sentence, but the appellant has already undergone actual incarceration significantly exceeding even the revived original sentence (11 years 8 months vs. 7 ye
India Law Library Docid # 2424858

(977) MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANOTHER Vs. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 & Rule 3A; Section 96(3) — Compromise Decree — Challenge Thereof — Bar on Fresh Suit — Exclusive Remedy — A compromise decree passed by a court under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, upon satisfaction that a suit has been adjusted by a lawful agreement or compromise, cannot be challenged by initiating a fresh suit on the ground that the compromise was not lawful (due to alleged coercion or fraud) — Order 23 Rule 3A CPC explicitly bars such a suit — Furtherm
India Law Library Docid # 2424859

(978) KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 397 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Conviction — Discussion on the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under S. 397 Cr.P.C. when examining concurrent findings of conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court — The revisional court's role is primarily confined to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of the findings, sentence, or order and the regularity of the proceedings of the lower courts — Th
India Law Library Docid # 2424863

(979) RAMESH SUNEJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025
Railways Act, 1989 — Ss. 123(c), 124-A — Untoward Incident — Accidental Fall from Train vs. Attempt to Alight — Bona Fide Passenger — Consideration of whether a fall from a moving train resulting in injury to a bona fide passenger constitutes an “untoward incident” under S. 123(c) liable for compensation under S. 124-A. Analysis contrasting the claimant’s consistent account of falling due to a push/jostling in an overcrowded compartment near a station with the Railways’ defence that it was an at
India Law Library Docid # 2424864

(980) DR. ABHISHEK AGGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 311 — Power to Summon Material Witness or Recall/Re-examine — Scope and Principles — The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide but must be exercised judiciously, with caution and circumspection, only to meet the ends of justice. Its objective is to discover the truth or obtain proper proof of facts essential for a just decision, not to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case resulting in prejudice to the accused or as an abuse of process. The c
India Law Library Docid # 2425047