ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(141) ANNALURU YOGA MYTHRI Vs. PALAGRI VINAYA DEVI[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Enquiry — The determination of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint itself, taken as true in their entirety — The Court cannot consider the defendant’s defence, written statement, or any external documents or evidence at this stage.
India Law Library Docid # 2424832

(142) SINGIREDDY SRINIVAS REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Quashing of Charge Sheet — Prima Facie Case — For determining whether a charge sheet under Section 306 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, the court must examine if the allegations in the complaint, witness statements, and collected materials, even if taken at face value, make out a prima facie case reflecting the essential ingredients of the offence.
India Law Library Docid # 2424833

(143) V. SURENDRA BABU, HYDERABAD Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS, HYD AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Principles of Natural Justice — Vagueness of Charges — Charges framed against a delinquent employee must be definite, distinct, and based on specific allegations, accompanied by a statement of allegations, list of documents, and list of witnesses as per applicable regulations — Failure to provide such specific particulars renders the charges vague and vitiates the enquiry for want of adequate opportunity to defend.
India Law Library Docid # 2424842

(144) P.V. MUDHUN REDDY @ PEDDIREDDI VENKATA MIDHUN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 (Anticipatory Bail) [Corresponding to Cr.P.C. Section 438] — Requirement of Reasonable Apprehension— The exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail requires the applicant to demonstrate a “reason to believe” — founded on concrete facts and reasonable grounds relating to a specific offence — that they are likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence — Mere vague or general allegations, fear based on media reports, or apprehension
India Law Library Docid # 2424892

(145) LAZARUS LUNJALA Vs. THE ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (AELC) AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Societies — Election Disputes — Management — Disposal by Consent — Appointment of Controller — In writ appeals concerning long-standing and complex disputes between multiple factions regarding the rightful management and upcoming elections of a registered society (AELC), where pending litigation and competing claims threatened further chaos, the High Court, with the agreement of counsel for all parties, disposed of the appeals by appointing a retired J
India Law Library Docid # 2424906

(146) M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHAMMAD ARIF AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 10 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Section 10 mandates that a claim for compensation should ordinarily be filed within two years of the accident — However, the proviso thereto empowers the Commissioner to entertain and decide a claim filed beyond this period if satisfied that the failure to file the claim in time was due to “sufficient cause” — Where the claimant underwent prolonged medical treatment and obtained a permanent di
India Law Library Docid # 2424948

(147) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. PARNEET KAUR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can only be ordered if the plaint, read as a whole, falls under any of the clauses (a) to (f) — The court must examine the averments in the plaint itself, assuming them to be true, without looking at the defence. Objections like collusion or contradiction, not falling within the specified clauses, are not grounds for rejection under this rule.
India Law Library Docid # 2424949

(148) PYARE LAL GUPTA Vs. SOM BALA ALIAS SUMAN KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 —Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 67] — Proof of Will — Onus Probandi — The onus of proving the due execution of a Will lies squarely and solely on the propounder of the Will This requires demonstrating compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, primarily through the examination of at least one attesting witness as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act (Section 67 BSA) — This onus does not
India Law Library Docid # 2424950

(149) GURMEET SINGH Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Promissory Estoppel / Legitimate Expectation — Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Promise — For a claim based on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation to succeed, the representation or promise made by the authority must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous — A person cannot claim a right based on altering their position pursuant to a promise or representation that was conditional or applicable only to a specific category of persons to which the claimant does not belong.
India Law Library Docid # 2424951

(150) NARBADA DEVI Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 25-B(8) — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — The scope of interference by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is highly restrictive and supervisory in nature It is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction — The High Court may interfere only to satisfy itself that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to law,” and cannot substitute its own findings or re-appreciate evidence, particularly on questions of fact like bona
India Law Library Docid # 2424952

(151) V.AKILESWARA REDDY Vs. GOLLA KARTHIK YADAV AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 14(3) — Production of Plaintiff's Documents — Leave of Court — Requirement of Reasons for Delay — The grant of leave under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for receiving documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which were not produced at the time of presenting the plaint, is discretionary — While technicalities should not always prevent evidence from coming on record, leave is not for mere asking — The plaintiff seeking to produce documents belatedly, especia
India Law Library Docid # 2424964

(152) GODREJ PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs. FRONTIER HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(2)(b) — Appeal against denial of Interim Relief (S.17) — Scope of Interference — The scope of an appeal under Section 37 against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) refusing to grant interim measures under Section 17 is highly circumscribed and analogous to the restrictive scope under Section 34 — The appellate court cannot conduct an independent assessment of merits or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interf
India Law Library Docid # 2425000

(153) PREETY Vs. SUMIT KUMAR NARWAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 6(a) Proviso — Interim Custody of Child Below Five Years — Welfare Principle Paramount — While Section 6(a) proviso states that custody of a minor child who has not completed five years shall ordinarily be with the mother, this is not an absolute rule — The paramount consideration in all custody matters, including interim custody, remains the welfare of the child — Courts can deviate from the ordinary rule if specific circumstances indicate tha
India Law Library Docid # 2425038

(154) KANTA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10 & Order 22 Rule 4 — Suit filed against Dead Person — Impleadment of Legal Representatives — Applicability of Provisions — A suit filed against a person who was already deceased at the time of institution is generally considered a nullity ab initio — An application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is technically not maintainable in such a case, as this provision applies only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit — The appropriate provision f
India Law Library Docid # 2425039

(155) MATA RANI Vs. SECRETARY, PUNJAB TRANSPORT AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Proof of Negligence — Evidentiary Value of Criminal Court Findings — While the findings of a Criminal Court regarding rash and negligent driving in a connected criminal case are not strictly binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), they cannot be ignored when deciding the issue of negligence in a claim petition — Given the different standards of proof (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal trials versus ‘preponderance of prob
India Law Library Docid # 2425040

(156) DALJIT SINGH HANJRA Vs. SIMRANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Quantum — Assessment Factors — In determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court must consider various factors including the status of the parties, respective needs of the claimant(s), income and assets (movable/immovable properties, business interests, rental income etc.) of the respondent-husband, liabilities, and the claimant’s independent income, if any — A comprehensive assessment based on evi
India Law Library Docid # 2425041

(157) SHREE P. A. PAREKH AND ANOTHER Vs. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Section 21 — Procedure for Taking Effluent Samples — Mandatory Requirements — Section 21 of the Water Act lays down a mandatory procedure for taking effluent samples for analysis, which includes serving notice, dividing the sample into two parts in the presence of the occupier/agent, sealing and marking both parts, sending one part to the prescribed Board laboratory, and, importantly, sending the second part to a laboratory specified under
India Law Library Docid # 2424300

(158) RANGRAO MAHADU PETHKAR (DECEASED, THROUGH HEIR & LR) Vs. SADASHIV MARUTI VIBHUTE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS AND L.RS.) AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — Sections 14, 43A & Notification thereunder — Termination of Tenancy for Sugarcane Cultivation — For agricultural lands leased out for sugarcane cultivation, governed by Section 43A of the Tenancy Act, the termination of tenancy due to default in payment of rent requires compliance with the procedure specified in the Notification issued under Section 43A(3), read with Section 14 — This involves the landlord giving the tenant three months’ wri
India Law Library Docid # 2424276

(159) JUNED @ JISHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 02-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 114, Illustration (b) — Appreciation of Evidence — Testimony of Rape Victim — The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is accorded significant weight, comparable to that of an injured witness — Corroboration is not an indispensable requirement for conviction if her evidence inspires confidence and is found reliable — The court must evaluate her testimony with sensitivity, mindful that she is a victim, not an accomplice — Minor cont
India Law Library Docid # 2424310

(160) GEORGE POTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Appeals — Maintainability — State has locus standi to file appeal against enhancement of compensation even if acquisition is for the benefit of a statutory body (requisitioning authority), as the primary liability to pay compensation rests with the State invoking eminent domain.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Market Value Determination — Role of LAO’s Assessment — If the Land Acquisition Officer considers and discards certain sale instances (claimant’s own purchase d
India Law Library Docid # 2424594