(221) SMT. NANIBAI WD/O LAXMANRAO NAVKHARE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. VITTHALRAO MAROTRAO NAVKHARE AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 & Order XXI Rule 35 — Partition Suit — Preliminary Decree vs. Final Decree — Executability — A preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, which merely declares the rights and shares of the parties, is not executable under Order XXI Rule 35 or otherwise — Execution proceedings can only be initiated after a final decree is passed, which determines the specific shares by metes and bounds, and such final decree is drawn up and engrossed on stamp pape India Law Library Docid # 2424304
(222) SANDIP ANIRUDDH JADHAV AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 — Section 50-B — Transfer of Protected Tenant Land — Prior Sanction Mandatory — Post Facto Sanction Impermissible — Invalidity of Transfer — Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, mandatorily requires previous sanction of the Collector for the transfer (including sale) of land purchased by a protected tenant under specified sections of the Act A transfer effected without such prior sanction is rendered invalid by India Law Library Docid # 2424311
(223) BHIMABAI AND OTHERS Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND RECORD NASHIK DIVISION AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 — Section 32(1) — Variation of Scheme — Limitation — Reasonable Period — An application seeking variation of a finalized consolidation scheme under Section 32(1) of the Act must be made within a reasonable period from the scheme coming into force — Based on judicial pronouncements, this reasonable period is generally considered to be three years, extendable only in exceptional cases with satisfactory explanation — Enterta India Law Library Docid # 2424312
(224) SRI. K. VISHWANATH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Criminal Investigation — Transfer of Investigation to Independent Agency (COD/CBI) — Allegations Against Local Police Personnel — Fair Investigation and Credibility — Where serious allegations are made against serving police officers (respondent nos. 5 & 6, appellants herein) regarding their conduct in investigating multiple cross-cases, including allegations of registering false cases, forging signatures, custodial assault, threats, and biased investigation (filing ‘B’ reports in complaints aga India Law Library Docid # 2424354
(225) NARASIMHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 — Cheating — Execution of Decree — Misidentifying Property for Possession — Obtaining possession of property ‘A’ (belonging to the complainant) during the execution of a decree obtained for property ‘B’, by deliberately misidentifying property ‘A’ to the Court Bailiff/Ameena as the decretal property, especially after getting the decree schedule amended post-decree to include identifiers of property ‘A’, constitutes the offence of cheating punishable under Section 4 India Law Library Docid # 2424394
(226) VINOTH Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 5(l), 6 — Consent of Minor — Irrelevance — Statutory Rape Principle — Sexual intercourse with a child below 18 years constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act — The consent of the minor victim (aged 16 years 8 months at the time of the offence), even if arising from a purported love affair, is legally irrelevant under the Act, reflecting the India Law Library Docid # 2424455
(227) DR. MATHEW A. KUZHALNADAN Vs. PINARAYI VIJAYAN AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 190(1)(a) — Taking Cognizance on Complaint — Magistrate may take cognizance only upon receiving a complaint containing facts which constitute such offence — Cognizance cannot be based on mere suspicion, conjectures or allegations devoid of factual foundation constituting the offence. India Law Library Docid # 2424592
(228) CHAMPAI URF CHAMPA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 370(4) & 34 — Trafficking of Persons — Acquittal of Co-accused — Where the main accused, charged under Section 370(5)/34 IPC for trafficking minor victims, has been acquitted by the High Court due to the prosecution’s failure to prove essential elements of exploitation as defined under Section 370(1), the conviction of a co-appellant under Section 370(4)/34 IPC arising from the same transaction and based on substantially similar evidence cannot be sustained, especiall India Law Library Docid # 2424692
(229) SMT. ARCHANA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. ANIL YADAV AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 — Employer-Employee Relationship — Proof — Alleged Familial Relationship — In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship for a claim under the Act, the sworn testimony of the owner (alleged employer) admitting the deceased was his driver and paid monthly wages carries significant weight — Mere assertions or entries in documents (like police statements or claim forms) suggesting a familial relationship, which are subsequently denied under oath India Law Library Docid # 2424693
(230) LINGA GOWRI SHANKER DIED PER L.RS. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1) — Compensation — Enhancement — Market Value Determination — Potentiality — Comparable Sales Method — Assessment of market value for acquired land — Consideration of factors like proximity to developed industrial and residential areas, availability of amenities, and potential for future development — Reliance on comparable sale deeds executed prior to Section 4(1) notification — Admissibility of sale statistics from preceding India Law Library Docid # 2424755
(231) MR. GOPU BALA REDDY Vs. THE BRG ENERGY LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Companies Act, 1956 — Winding Up — Locus Standi of Ex-Director — An ex-Director of a company in liquidation retains locus standi to challenge actions of a secured creditor if such actions potentially harm the liquidation process, the interests of other creditors, or if the ex-Director has a legitimate personal interest (submitted an OTS offer) and the challenge is based on valid legal grounds. India Law Library Docid # 2424776
(232) LINGA GOWRI SHANKER DIED PER L.RS. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23 — Market Value — Determination — High Potentiality Land — Comparable Sales Method — Enhancement — Land acquired in 1990 (fresh notification after 1981 notification lapsed) located near developed industrial and residential areas with amenities — Claimants produced sale deeds showing surrounding plotted land value around Rs.150/- per sq.yd — LAO awarded Rs.70-75/sq.yd based on different sale stats — Reference Court, considering claimant’s evidence and high p India Law Library Docid # 2424777
(233) M/S NARNE ESTATES PVT LTD Vs. RAJU BAI RAJ KUMARI[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIII Rule 3 — Rejection of documents — Power of Court — A Court hearing a suit possesses the inherent power under Order XIII Rule 3 to reject documents deemed irrelevant or inadmissible, provided it records the grounds for such rejection. India Law Library Docid # 2424779
(234) G.SREERAMULU AND OTHERS Vs. M.BABU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal for Enhancement of Compensation — Scope — Where an appeal is preferred solely by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), and the finding on negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability of the insurer is not challenged either by the insurer or owner through appeal or cross-objections, the scope of the appeal is confined only to the India Law Library Docid # 2424822
(235) SABBAVRAJPU SRINIVASA VARA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF AP[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397 & 401 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Concurrent Findings — The High Court’s power under revisional jurisdiction is limited — It cannot act as a second appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, unless there is a manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity in findings, or gross miscarriage of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2424813
(236) THE SNAP GYM 24/7 LLP Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Disputed Questions of Fact — The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, such as the identity of the entity against which action is taken, the relationship between different entities operating in proximity, or the validity/extent of hypothecation over specific assets, as determination thereof requires evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2424814
(237) DR. C. PADMAVATHI (DIED). BY LRS Vs. DHULIPALA RAMACHANDRA RAO (DIED) BY LRS AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rules 3 & 11 — Substitution of Legal Representative in Appeal — Right to Sue Survives — Prevention of Abatement — Upon the death of a sole appellant, where the right to sue (or appeal) survives, the appeal does not abate if an application to bring the legal representative(s) on record is filed within the time prescribed by law (Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963) — The Court, upon such timely application, is obligated under Order XXII Rule 3 (read with Rule 1 India Law Library Docid # 2424820
(238) TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS Vs. M/S MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Section 18 & Chapter V — Arbitration Act, 1996 — Overriding Effect & Jurisdiction of Facilitation Council — Chapter V of the MSMED Act, 2006, has an overriding effect over the Arbitration Act, 1996 — Consequently, a party defined as a “supplier” under the MSMED Act is entitled to make a reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 for recovery of dues, notwithstanding the existence of an independent arbitration agreement betw India Law Library Docid # 2424807
(239) A.S.V. KRISHNAM RAJU (DEAD) Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — Section 35 — Procedure and Powers of Appellate Tribunal — Applicability of CPC and Limitation Act — While Section 35(1) of the PMLA states the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) but guided by principles of natural justice, and Section 35(2) grants specific powers akin to a civil court, provisions like Order 22 CPC or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (prescribing 90 days for LR India Law Library Docid # 2424870
(240) V.S. RAYUDU AND OTHERS Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP BY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 — Regulation 8(1)(v) & 12 — Recovery of Pecuniary Loss — Procedure — Recovery from pay of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders, as provided under Regulation 8(1)(v), is a penalty — Imposition of such penalty requires mandatory adherence to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12, which includes informing the employee in writing India Law Library Docid # 2424875