(161) CANARA BANK BRANCH OFFICE Vs. SREEKUMARI K AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 18 — Effect of Acknowledgment in Writing — A fresh period of limitation commences from the date an acknowledgment of liability is signed by the party against whom a right is claimed, provided it is made before the expiration of the prescribed period — Where successive acknowledgments were executed before the expiry of the initial and extended limitation periods respectively, the suit filed based on the last acknowledgment is within time. India Law Library Docid # 2424636
(162) SMT. SAVITRI BAI AND OTHERS Vs. INDERKUMAR GABEL AND ANOTHER[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ — Survival of Claim for Personal Injuries upon Claimant’s Death — Loss to Estate — A claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident abates upon the death of the injured claimant (if the death is unrelated to the accident injuries), in accordance with the maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ — However, the claim survives to the extent of pecuniary India Law Library Docid # 2424721
(163) B.SRIKANTH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Charge Sheet (S. 498A IPC) — Scope of Consideration — Entirety of Circumstances — In proceedings seeking quashing of criminal complaints, particularly those arising from matrimonial disputes, the High Court is not confined merely to the averments in the complaint/FIR — It can and should consider the entirety of the circumstances and background, including subsequent events like divorce proceedings, India Law Library Docid # 2424836
(164) ANDEM SUDHAKAR REDDY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 — Section 4(1) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 136 — Mutation Based on Court Decree — Time Limits — A person acquiring rights through a court decree must intimate the acquisition to the Tahsildar under Section 4(1) of the ROR Act, 1971, within the prescribed period (originally 90 days, later amended) — Furthermore, seeking implementation or mutation based on a decree, particularly a partition decree, is subject to the limitation period f India Law Library Docid # 2424840
(165) RACHERLA PADMAVATHAMMA Vs. MARINENI NAGALAKSHMI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Order Dismissing Order 7 R 11 Application — Invocation of High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227 to examine the legality and correctness of a trial court order dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of a plaint. India Law Library Docid # 2424899
(166) POTHURAJU SUBBA RAO Vs. VELLANKI VENKATADRI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17, Proviso — Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial Commencement — Due Diligence— The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 significantly restricts the court’s power to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced Such an amendment shall not be allowed unless the court concludes that the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter earlier despite exercising due diligence — This principle applies even at the stage of first or second appeal. India Law Library Docid # 2424903
(167) SACHDEVA LAND AND FINANCE PVT LTD Vs. MS CHAHAT JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 141(1) — Vicarious Liability of Directors — Time of Offence and Resignation — For fastening vicarious liability upon a director under Section 141(1) of the NI Act, it is essential that the person was (i) in charge of, and (ii) responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time the offence under Section 138 was committed — A director who has duly resigned from the company prior to the commission of the offence cannot ordinarily be held lia India Law Library Docid # 2424953
(168) M/S CNR EXPORTS Vs. MOHD. QADEER PROP. OF M/S MEHTAB EXPORT HOUSE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Appreciation of Evidence — Suit for Recovery — Sale of Goods — In a suit for recovery based on goods sold and delivered, where the plaintiff establishes supply through invoices, ledger accounts, and communication seeking payment, and the defendant admits receipt but claims return due to defects, the onus is on the defendant to prove the return and the alleged defects with cogent evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2424954
(169) MOIRANGTHEM ANAND SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43D(5) — Bail — Test for Rejection — Prima Facie Truth — The primary test for denying bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is whether the Court, on a perusal of the case diary and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against the accused are prima facie true — This requires assessing the totality of material presented by the investigation agency based on broad proba India Law Library Docid # 2424955
(170) M/S SIDDHARTHA CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 12(5) & Seventh Schedule — Ineligibility from Unilateral Appointment — A person whose relationship with the parties or subject matter falls under the Seventh Schedule is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator — Furthermore, a person who is themselves ineligible to act as an arbitrator is also ineligible to appoint a sole arbitrator — Any such unilateral appointment by an ineligible person renders the appointment void ab initio. India Law Library Docid # 2424956
(171) PRAKASH LAL KHERA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of Summoning Order — Scope — The High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash a summoning order if the allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, or where initiating proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. India Law Library Docid # 2424957
(172) M/S SEASPRAY SHIPPING CO LTD. Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Interference — International Commercial Arbitration Award — Public Policy — Judicial review of an award in an international commercial arbitration under Sections 34 and 37 is extremely limited — Interference is permissible only on grounds specified in Section 34(2), primarily contravention of the “fundamental policy of Indian law” (narrowly construed post-2015 amendment) or conflict with basic notions of morality or justice — T India Law Library Docid # 2424958
(173) MOHD ANSAR SIDDIQUI Vs. VARUN SACHDEVA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope — Judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed not only on clear and unequivocal admissions but also where the defence raised is ex facie specious, untenable, moonshine, or illusory — The court is justified in considering the pleadings (written statement) to ascertain if any triable issue or legally tenable defence arises, failing which a decree can be passed without relegating the matter to India Law Library Docid # 2424959
(174) UDAYA KUMAR KAMATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 & Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Due Execution of Will — To obtain probate, the propounder must prove the due and valid execution of the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 — This requires proving not only the testator’s signature/mark but also proper attestation by at least two witnesses — As mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, at least one attesting witness (if alive, capable, and subject to court process) m India Law Library Docid # 2424960
(175) RAMA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Sections 13 & 15 [Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c), 124A] — Untoward Incident — Bona Fide Passenger — The initial burden lies upon the claimant seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, to establish that the deceased/injured was a bona fide passenger travelling on the train in question at the time of the alleged untoward incident. India Law Library Docid # 2424961
(176) MUKESH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 75 & 76 — Powers and Functions of Chief Commissioner (CCPD) — Binding Nature of Recommendations — Unlike the repealed Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Section 76 of the 2016 Act mandates that the concerned authority shall take necessary action upon a recommendation made by the CCPD under Section 75(1)(b) regarding deprivation of rights or safeguards for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) — However, this mandate is subject to the proviso India Law Library Docid # 2424962
(177) SHAIK MADAR MIAH Vs. THE STATE OF AP.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32(1) — Dying Declaration — Multiple Declarations — Reliability and Consistency — Where the prosecution case hinges solely on multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, but there exist material contradictions and inconsistencies between these declarations (regarding the immediate motive, the sequence of events, and who brought the deceased to the hospital), and there is a complete absence of any other independent or corroborative evidence pointing towards the India Law Library Docid # 2424963
(178) SUMAN SHARMA Vs. MAHENDER SHARMA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 340 — Inquiry into Perjury — Expediency in Interest of Justice — For a court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (leading to a complaint for perjury under S. 195), it must form a considered opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to conduct an inquiry — Prosecution for perjury is not mandatory for every incorrect or false statement made in court proceedings. India Law Library Docid # 2425001
(179) RAJ SINGH Vs. M/S M.R. TRADING CO.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 14 Rule 2 — Preliminary Issue — Scope of — Mixed Questions of Law and Fact — The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC to try an issue as a preliminary issue is limited to pure questions of law relating to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force — The Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue India Law Library Docid # 2425033
(180) HANS RAJ Vs. SURJEETO DEVI AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional Evidence in Second Appeal — Rejection Criteria — Due Diligence & Essentiality — An application for producing additional evidence at the second appeal stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is liable to be dismissed where the applicant fails to establish that despite due diligence, the evidence, which was within their knowledge, could not be produced before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court — The applicant must provide a plausible ex India Law Library Docid # 2425034