ive
THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(921) GANNON DUNKERLEY AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6A) - Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties - A party fails to act as required under that procedure - The petitioner is involved in a dispute with the Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways regarding the development and construction of a section of National Highway NH-37 - The petitioner seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator for dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The
India Law Library Docid # 2403764

(922) WASIM KHAN Vs. UT OF LADAKH[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 22 and 37 – Recovery of Slight Wet Ganja packed in 09 small polythene bags – 760 Spasmo Proxyon Plus Schedule H1 capsules - 570 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus schedules H-1 (Total 1330 capsules) - ULTRACET (NRX Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophgen) of 08 strips containing 15 tablets each (total 105 Tablets). - Bail - The main issues were whether the seized substances fell under commercial quantity, the applicability o
India Law Library Docid # 2414078

(923) KHALID LATIF BUTT Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 40 and 43-D(5) of Appellant accused in a terror-related case under various sections of the UAPA Act, 1967, is appealing against the dismissal of his bail application by the trial court - The main issue is whether the evidence against Appellant is admissible and substantial enough to deny bail, considering the serious accusations of involvement in terror activities - The defence argues that the evidence against Appellant is
India Law Library Docid # 2414079

(924) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD (BSNL) AND ANOTHER Vs. DEVI DITTA S/O BELI RAM AND OTHERS[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 17B and 25F - Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts - The petitioners, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and others, seek to quash the Judgment/Award dated 30.09.2005 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, which they claim is against facts and law - The main issue is the alleged perversity of the Tribunal's Award, which concluded that the respondents (former casual laborers) had completed more than 240 days
India Law Library Docid # 2414080

(925) JOGINDER VAID AND OTHERS Vs. SHAILENDER VAID[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 16, 17, and 24 - The case involves a family dispute over property, including a house, shop, petrol pump, and land in Jammu - The respondent has filed suits for partition and injunction against his family members - The petitioners seek the transfer of two civil suits to a court of competent jurisdiction in Jammu, citing convenience and the ends of justice - The petitioners argue that the suits filed by the respondent are to harass them by dragging them into
India Law Library Docid # 2414081

(926) JASVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K THROUGH FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHER[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2024
Service Law – Selection Process - The case involves a dispute over the selection process for Sub Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police, dating back to 1991 - Petitioners challenged their non-selection despite having higher marks than some selected candidates - The main issue was the alleged arbitrary and illegal non-selection of the petitioners and the appointment of a candidate under a "women category" not specified in the advertisement - Petitioners argued they were more meritor
India Law Library Docid # 2414082

(927) K. PHILIPS BUELAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467, 472 read with Section 34 - The case revolves around allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy by the accused in a land sale transaction - The complainant, an ENT specialist, was persuaded to purchase land that was later found to be non-existent or belonging to third parties - The main issue is whether the allegations and evidence presented make out the offences for which the Magistrate took cognizance and if the criminal proceedings
India Law Library Docid # 2414412

(928) MUKHTIAR KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 420 and 120-B - Petitioners are accused of not honoring an agreement to sell a plot after receiving earnest money, resulting in FIR under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC - Compromise - The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR based on a compromise with respondent No.2. - They contend that the matter has been settled amicably outside the court - Respondent No.2 acknowledges the compromise, and the State has no objection to quashing the FIR - Citing the Supreme Court’s d
India Law Library Docid # 2403745

(929) ZAHID AHMAD NAJAR Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Preventive Detention - The petitioner, challenges his detention claiming it is based on vague and non-existent grounds - The main issue is the legality of the petitioner’s detention on the grounds that he may be granted bail and potentially engage in activities prejudicial to the security of J&K - The petitioner argues that the detention is based on assumptions and that there is no possibility of bail being granted for the FIR No.15/2022 under which he was arrested - The respondents claim that t
India Law Library Docid # 2403748

(930) GHULAM QADIR MIR AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Suit for ownership and Mutation of land - The petitioners filed a suit for ownership and mutation of land, which was settled through a compromise at the National Lok Adalat - They sought implementation of the award for mutation in revenue records - The main issue is whether the compromise deed requires registration under the Registration Act and if the petitioners are entitled to mutation based on the Lok Adalat award - The petitioners argue that the land formed the subject matter of the suit,
India Law Library Docid # 2403749

(931) ERNA JOHANNA BOSE AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - Section 10A - A declaration or an instrument to be submitted before the Competent Authority and to be dealt with by him - The petitioners, flat owners challenge the registration of an Owners’ Association under the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - The issues include non-issuance of notice to petitioners, time-bar of the application, and jurisdiction of the Competent Authority - The petitioners argue violation of statutory provisions, natural
India Law Library Docid # 2403750

(932) KUMAR TAMANG @ HARI KUMAR TAMANG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Judicial Review of Certificate of Identification Cancellation - Applicability of Writ Petition in Absence of Statutory Remedy - Petitioner’s Certificate of Identification (COI) was cancelled without a hearing, which identified him as a Sikkim resident and Indian national - The main issue is whether the cancellation of the COI and subsequent actions were lawful and whether Petitioner was denied a fair hearing - Petitioner argues that the cancellation of his COI and property transactions based on
India Law Library Docid # 2403799

(933) SHILPA SANTOSH SALVI Vs. PANKAJ SHOBHNATH YADAV AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Caste certificate – Validity of - The petitioner challenges the validity of a caste certificate issued to the respondent by the Competent Authority Mumbai Suburban - The main issue is whether the Competent Authority Mumbai Suburban had the jurisdiction to issue the caste certificate, as the petitioner contends that only the Competent Authority Mumbai City had the authority to do so
India Law Library Docid # 2403721

(934) NURUL HUDA BARBHUIYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 384, 365, 323, 406, 420, 376 and 511 –The primary issue is the legality of multiple FIRs for the same incident and the subsequent criminal proceedings - The petitioner argues that multiple FIRs for the same offence are barred by law and constitute an abuse of the legal process - The respondent contends that there are sufficient materials to prosecute the petitioner and that the FIRs are valid - The court quashed the criminal proceedings finding them to be an abu
India Law Library Docid # 2413922

(935) SRI SURESH CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(b), 41, 42 and 52A- Possession of heroin - The appeal against the trial court's judgment questioned the compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 42, and the authenticity of the seizure and investigation process - The appellant's counsel argued non-compliance with Section 42, ownership proof of the seizure location, and concerns about the integrity of seizure witnesses and the delay in sending the
India Law Library Docid # 2414883

(936) MEENA ARORA Vs. SUDARSHAN SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13 - Eviction of tenants -The tenant is challenging eviction orders under the Act - The landlord claims ownership and personal necessity for the property - The main issues are the arrears of rent, the landlord’s personal necessity for the premises, maintainability of the petition, and non-joinder of necessary parties -Tenant contends that Respondent is not the owner but a Sub Power of Attorney holder, and thus cannot claim personal necessity
India Law Library Docid # 2403746

(937) AVTAR SINGH @ JAGTAR SINGH @ JAGGA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 21(b) read with Section 31 and 42 - Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization - The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 21(b) read with Section 31 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 - The main issue is the challenge to the judgment of conviction and sentence based on the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act - Th
India Law Library Docid # 2403747

(938) SURJIT SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
Issuance of Order by CM while in Custody - The petitioner seeks to restrain Mr. Arvind Kejriwal from issuing orders while in custody and to investigate how such orders reached Ms. Atishi. - The main issue is whether Mr. Kejriwal, who is in police custody, can issue directions/orders as the Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi
India Law Library Docid # 2403718

(939) KIRAN B. PULEKAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
Service Law – Termination - The petitioner was terminated from the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) and is challenging this termination, seeking reinstatement with benefits, action on his complaints, protection from victimization, and compensation for violation of the right to livelihood - The main issue is the challenge against the termination order dated 13 April 2017, with the petitioner alleging malice and bias due to his previous actions against SCI management - The petitioner argues tha
India Law Library Docid # 2403719

(940) RAJEEV RUIA Vs. MAHESH VENNALAKANTI[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 01-04-2024
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 10 – Judicial Separation - The appeal challenges a Family Court judgment regarding a petition for judicial separation, a counterclaim for divorce, and ownership of a flat in Juhu, Mumbai - The main issue is the ownership of the Juhu flat, with the appellant claiming a 50% share - The appellant argues entitlement to a 50% share of the Juhu flat based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
India Law Library Docid # 2403720