ive
Latest Cases

(161) SAARTHI AIRWAYS PVT LTD Vs. DR. B.M MISHRA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Title Dispute - Unauthorized construction - Title dispute over the land between the petitioner and respondent no.5, University of Delhi, leading to a demarcation order to resolve the claims - The petitioner argued that the land in possession of the University of Delhi was not the land allotted to it and claimed ownership - The University of Delhi claimed that the land was allotted to it by the Government of NCT of Delhi and had taken physical possession - The court found substantial compliance w
India Law Library Docid # 2415288

(162) GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD Vs. ANNAPURNA FILMS PVT. LTD., AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 2A CPC – Injunction - Copyright infringement - The case involves a breach of a Production Agreement between Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. and a Bhojpuri artist, with allegations of copyright infringement and exclusivity obligations on YouTube and other platforms - The primary issue is whether the artist infringed the plaintiff's copyright by creating content and allowing third parties to promote and monetize it, despite an existing agreement - T
India Law Library Docid # 2415289

(163) SARTHAK JHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The High Court has ruled that a student with intellectual disability is entitled to 3% reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in private unaided colleges - The court held that the provisions of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 (DPCIA) and its rules apply to private
India Law Library Docid # 2415290

(164) VLS FINANCE LTD Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Right to be heard in revision petitions - The petitioner challenged the order dismissing their application for impleadment in revision petitions against orders framing charges in various criminal cases related to financial fraud - The primary issue was whether the petitioner had the right to be impleaded and heard in the revision petitions pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge - The petitioner argued for their participatory rights at every stage of the criminal proceedings, citing
India Law Library Docid # 2415291

(165) BHARATIYA RASHTRIYA RAJMARG PRADHIKARAN Vs. NEERAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 31(5), 34 and 37 - The High Court dismissed an application filed under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, against a judgment and order rejecting an application under Section 34 of the Act - The main issue was whether the appellant was justified in dismissing the application since they never received a signed copy of the arbitral award, a mandatory requirement under Section 31(5) of the Act - The court held that the delivery of an arbitral award is not
India Law Library Docid # 2415292

(166) ASHOK AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302 read with 34 – Murder –Appellant was convicted for murder, while co-accused were acquitted - The appeals challenge the trial court's decision, questioning the reliability of witnesses, the application of Section 34 IPC, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction - The appellant argues that the incident occurred in a public place, yet no independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution's story - The reliance on testimonies of interested witnesses (nephe
India Law Library Docid # 2415293

(167) HARI SHANKER AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 - Murder - Reliability of eyewitnesses, the timing of the FIR, the delay in the post-mortem, and the assessment of evidence by the trial court - The appellants argued that the trial court wrongly assessed the evidence, claiming that there were no eyewitnesses, discrepancies in statements, and no proof of the third fire - The prosecution maintained that the eyewitnesses' accounts were credible, the motive for the offence was established, and the evidence was c
India Law Library Docid # 2415294

(168) RAJVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 - Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Whether circumstantial evidence against accused is sufficient to uphold his conviction for the murder - The appellant's counsel argued that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstances - It was also argued that the motive was not established, and the recovery of the axe and clothes was not properly proved - The State argued that the motive was clearly established
India Law Library Docid # 2415295

(169) DR. SUBHASISH DAS GUPTA Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (ACB), SHILLONG[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) – Pseudonymous complaint - The case involves allegations of illegal financial transactions in a CBI case, with two petitions filed. relating to the same matter - The main issue is whether the FIR and subsequent investigation based on a pseudonymous complaint are valid, and whether the petitioners are considered public servants under the Act, 1988 - The petitioners argue that the CBI did
India Law Library Docid # 2415299

(170) SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 387, 506 and 120B –Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 43D2 and 43D2(b) – The revision challenges the order which allowed the Investigating Officer an additional 90 days to complete the investigation in a case involving various sections of the IPC and the UAPA - The primary issue is whether the magistrate has the authority to extend the investigation period beyond 90 days under the UAPA - The petitioner contends that only a special court or a c
India Law Library Docid # 2415300

(171) IRFAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 read with 34 – Murder - The main issue is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to uphold the convictions of the appellants - The defence argued that the evidence was weak, the recovered weapons were not connected to the crime, and there was no last seen evidence or conclusive forensic report linking the appellants to the murder - The State contended that the appellants inquired about who sleeps in the shop, and the subsequent r
India Law Library Docid # 2415301

(172) SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 - The complainant claimed that two accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, attacked him and his two friends during a marriage reception, causing severe injuries - The bail petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and had no evidence against them - They argued that the investigation was complete and they were willing to cooperate with the trial - The State argued that the bail petitioners were not entitled to bail due t
India Law Library Docid # 2415315

(173) DR. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Service Law - The petitioners, who were appointed as veterinary officers ad hoc and later regularized, claim that their ad hoc services should be counted for seniority and other service benefits - The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which rejected their claim for consideration of their ad hoc services - They rely on the judgment passed by the Court in CWP(T) No.2773 of 2008, which granted the benefit of
India Law Library Docid # 2415316

(174) RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. DALIP SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53-A - The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant regarding the ownership and possession of a piece of land called 'Khaddar-ka-Bagh' in Mauja Malenwala, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P - The plaintiffs claimed they had inherited the land from 'K', who had purchased it from 'M' and 'N' on 1.2.1968 - The defendant contested the suit, claiming he had purchased the land from Kanwar Jagdish Kumar on the basis of an agr
India Law Library Docid # 2415317

(175) VIDYA DEVI Vs. ROHANSHU (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Land Dispute - The dispute involved land ownership - The plaintiff, ‘R’ claimed ownership of the land by inheritance - The defendant, ‘S’ (deceased), contested this claim - Whether ‘R’ was the legal wife of (deceased)? - Whether the mutation attested in favor of ‘R’ was valid? - Whether the alleged will in favor of the defendant was legal? - ‘R asserted that she was legally married - She relied on evidence to prove her ownership of the land - The defendant contested ‘R’s claim - The defendant's
India Law Library Docid # 2415318

(176) HAKAM SINGH Vs. HEM RAJ (DECEASED) AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Suit for specific performance - Agriculturist filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh from defendant No.1, 'H' - The plaintiff claimed to have paid an earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000 and agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 7,24,000 on or before 30.04.2004 - The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and entered into a sham sale deed with defendants No.2 and No.3 - The
India Law Library Docid # 2415319

(177) CHANCHAL RANA Vs. VIBHA TANU SHREE PATHANIA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - The petitioner and respondent were married on 16.01.2020 - The petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce against the respondent, who filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation charges - The Family Court granted the application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at a rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing the petition and Rs.25,000/- tow
India Law Library Docid # 2415320

(178) AMIR MALLICK AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 - The prosecution's case was based on the dying declaration of the deceased, which stated that Appellant No. 1, his mother, and Appellant No. 2 set her on fire due to a dispute over property ownership - The defense argued that the dying declaration was unreliable due to inconsistencies and discrepancies, and that the deceased's mental state was not fit to give a statement -The court upheld the conviction of Appellant No. 1 based on the voluntary, cohe
India Law Library Docid # 2415321

(179) UPENDRA MAHTO @ UPENDRA MEHTA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 377 - The appellant was convicted of murder and sexual assault of a 10-year-old boy under the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - The prosecution used circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, the recovery of a spectacle near the victim's body, and the appellant's extra-judicial confession - The court found the extra-judicial confession obtained under coercion and inadmissible, citing Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
India Law Library Docid # 2415322

(180) PREM PAL SINGH EX. DRIVER NO. 930920695, CRPF Vs. UOI THROUGH HOME SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 24-05-2024
CRPF Rules, 1955 - Rule 27 (2)(ccc) - Service Law – Dismissal - The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service by the CRPF following allegations of selling fuel to civilians - The main issue was whether the petitioner's discharge by a criminal court on similar charges should affect the departmental proceedings and his subsequent dismissal - He argued that the departmental action was not in line with Rule 27 (2)(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which requires prior sanction from the Inspector
India Law Library Docid # 2415333