ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(1) UMESH CHANDRA PAREEK AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-09-2024
Judicial Process — Abuse of — Filing multiple, identical petitions seeking the same relief that has already been granted by the court is an abuse of the judicial process and can result in the imposition of costs on the petitioners.

B. Power of Court to impose Cost — The court has the power to impose costs as a deterrent to discourage the filing of unnecessary and repetitive petitions.
India Law Library Docid # 2417819

(2) IMTIYAZ AHMAD DAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 — Articles 168A and 168D — Pension and Gratuity — The court examined whether an employee against whom criminal proceedings are pending can be denied final pension and gratuity but be granted provisional pension under Articles 168-A and 168-D — It was held that under Article 168-D, an employee facing pending judicial (including criminal) proceedings at the time of retirement is entitled to provisional pension, but the final settlement of
India Law Library Docid # 2417651

(3) ALI MOHAMMAD GANAI Vs. J&K INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024
Service Law — Date of Birth Determination in Government Service — The court clarified that in cases where an employee's date of birth is disputed, the initial burden lies with the employee to prove their date of birth — If the employee fails to provide satisfactory proof, the employer may rely on alternative methods such as medical examination or other credible documents — The court emphasized that once a date of birth is determined by a competent authority (e.g., a Medical Board), it should gen
India Law Library Docid # 2417652

(4) MUBASHIR MAJEED DAR Vs. GOVT. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Detention — Petitioner challenged his preventive detention under the Public Safety Act and argued that the detention order was without proper application of mind, the grounds were vague, legal safeguards were not followed, and a previous similar order was revoked without fresh allegations — The court, however, dismissed the petition, finding that the grounds of detention were not identical to the previous order, the respondents had the right to revoke
India Law Library Docid # 2417653

(5) BILAL AHMAD LONE Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 364, 201, 436 and 182 — Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 7 and 25 — Bail — The High Court granted bail to an approver in a case related to a fake encounter — The court held that Section 306(4)(b) of the CrPC, which requires an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial, cannot be interpreted in a manner that violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India — The court found that there were exceptional circumstances in the case, including
India Law Library Docid # 2417654

(6) SRI LINGESH K. S. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 468, 464, 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 and 120B — The petitioners accused of illegally granting government lands to bogus beneficiaries, causing a loss of over Rs. 750 crores — Whether the FIR against the petitioners should be quashed due to alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies —Petitioner argues that the complaint is vague, lacks specific details, and no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was obtained for government servants — Respondent states the all
India Law Library Docid # 2417854

(7) DR. SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 and 37— Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 17, 5(L), and 6 — Religious Institution Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988 — Sections 3(f) and 7 — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75 — Petitioner is seeking to expunge a portion of the deposition of PW-1 recorded on 01.07.2024 in a case involving charges under IPC and POCSO Act — Whether the statement recor
India Law Library Docid # 2417855

(8) SRI. RAOJI Vs. SMT. K.M. SAVITHRIDEVI AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 13-09-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 101 — The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order dismissing his application — The respondents had filed a suit for partition in 1992, which was decreed in 1995 —Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies — The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the legislative intent of Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 and that his rights
India Law Library Docid # 2417863

(9) M/S HALCYON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 12-09-2024
Withholding of Payment — Non Supply of goods — The petitioner supplied drugs to the J&K Health & Medical Education Department but failed to deliver 1.5 crore Paracetamol tablets as per the supply orders — The main issue was whether the respondent-department was justified in withholding payment of Rs. 12,45,226/- due to the petitioner’s failure to supply the Paracetamol tablets — The petitioner argued that the withheld amount should be released as the respondent-department did not issue prior not
India Law Library Docid # 2417655

(10) ALI MOHAMMAD DAR AND OTHERS Vs. PREM SINGH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 12-09-2024
Motor Accident Claims — The case involves a road traffic accident on May 6, 2007, resulting in the death — The claimants sought compensation from the vehicle's owner and the insurance company — The main issue was whether the insurance policy covering the vehicle was valid or fraudulent — The petitioners argued that the insurance policy was valid and provided by the police — They claimed the insurance company should pay the compensation — The insurance company argued that the policy was fraudulen
India Law Library Docid # 2417656

(11) AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 12-09-2024
Preventive Detention — Appellant, was detained under a preventive detention — He has faced multiple FIRs from 2013 to 2023 but was granted bail in all cases — The appellant argued that his detention was illegal as he was not provided with the material relied upon for his detention, preventing him from making an effective representation — The appellant claimed he was a nationalist involved in mainstream politics and not an anti-national element — He argued that the detention order was based on il
India Law Library Docid # 2417658

(12) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ANGREY SINGH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder of wife — The trial court acquitted him in 1992, and the State of Rajasthan appealed the decision — Whether the trial court erred in acquitting despite evidence and testimonies suggesting his guilt — The State argued that there were three eyewitnesses and forensic evidence linking respondent to the crime, which the trial court ignored — The defense highlighted contradictions in the prosecution's case, including the timing of the police's arrival and
India Law Library Docid # 2417838

(13) THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR S. AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 12-09-2024
Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion (Amendment and Regulations) 2020 — Regulation 12B(i) — Employees seeking promotion based on their initial entry date, despite inter-circle transfers — Whether employees who request inter-circle transfers should retain their seniority from their initial entry date for promotion purposes — Employees argued that their seniority should be counted from their initial entry date, as per Regulation 12B(i) — KPTCL contended that employees who request
India Law Library Docid # 2417853

(14) SPICEJET LIMITED Vs. TEAM FRANCE 01 SAS AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-09-2024
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Jurisdiction, governing law, and interim relief in a commercial dispute involving engine lease agreements between an Indian airline and two French companies — The court found that the engine lease agreements contained an asymmetric jurisdiction clause, allowing the lessors (Team France and Sunbird France) to sue the lessee (SpiceJet) both in the Courts of competent jurisdiction in England and in courts of relevant jurisdiction where the leased engines
India Law Library Docid # 2417529

(15) MOHAMMAD HANEEF MOHAMMAD ISHAQUE Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH ACP SOUTH EAST[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-09-2024
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 17 — Punishment for raising Funds for Terrorist act — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 153A — Standard for Granting Bail under Section 153-A IPC — The court emphasized that to convict under Section 153-A IPC, the prosecution must establish prima facie the existence of mens rea (intention) on the part of the accused to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people — The court referred to ‘Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State o
India Law Library Docid # 2417530

(16) ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-09-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Right to bail and the principle that "bail is the rule, and Jail is an exception" in money laundering cases, particularly when the investigation is complete and the accused has cooperated with the investigation — The Delhi High Court held that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offense should not be permitted to become punishment without trial — The court reiterated the principle that "bail is the rule, and jail i
India Law Library Docid # 2417531

(17) MANAV MANDIR MISSION TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-09-2024
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 48(1) — Power to De-notify Land — The court noted that the power to de-notify land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rests exclusively with the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi, as per Section 48(1) of the Act.

B. Application of Zonal Development Plan (ZDP) and Master Development Plan (MDP) — The court clarified that the Zonal Development Plan for Zone "O" and the Master Development Plan 2021 (MDP-2021) are the governing documents for la
India Law Library Docid # 2417532

(18) SATISH CHAND JAIN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 52(1), DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 11-09-2024
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 148 — Limitation on Reopening Concluded Assessments — The court held that the decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617 does not mandate the reopening of concluded assessments based on the same set of reasons — The judgment in Ashish Agarwal was primarily concerned with the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) before the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and not with reopening assessmen
India Law Library Docid # 2417533

(19) SUMIT SLATHIA @ BHANU PARTAP SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 11-09-2024
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8 — Detention based on a dossier by the SSP, Samba, citing his involvement in multiple criminal cases and his association with a notorious gang — The legality of the preventive detention order and whether the grounds for detention were justified — The petitioner argued that some FIRs cited were outdated, and the remaining FIRs did not justify preventive detention — He also claimed he was unaware of the detention reasons until his father visited him in jail —
India Law Library Docid # 2417712

(20) MOHD. ASLAM AND OTHERS Vs. RAIZ AHMED AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 11-09-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 80 — The petitioners sought the rejection of a civil suit filed by the respondents, which demanded the removal of illegal construction of 14 shops on a disputed land — Whether the suit was maintainable without prior notice under Section 80 to the public officials named as defendants — The petitioners argued that the suit should be rejected as it was filed without the mandatory notice to public officials under Section 80 — The respondents claimed urgency
India Law Library Docid # 2417713