(241) M/S. H.R.R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Impleadment of Third Parties in Appeal — Necessary and Proper Parties — Scope of Discretion — The Court possesses wide discretionary power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, exercisable at any stage including appeal, to implead any person whose presence is deemed necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit/appeal — This power aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, safeguard against injust India Law Library Docid # 2424878
(242) DR. C. PADMAVATHI (DIED). DR. C. SAILAJA Vs. DHULIPALA RAMACHANDRA RAO (DIED), SUSEELA MAHANTI (DIED) D.BHASKAR MAHANTI 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 — 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 period prescribed by law (Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963) — The Court is obligated, on such timely application, to cause the legal representative to be made a party and proceed wi India Law Library Docid # 2424883
(243) CONSTRUCCIONES Y AUXILIAR DE FERROCARRILES AND ANOTHER Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (INDIA)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 48 — Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award — Scope of Review — The scope of inquiry under Section 48 for refusal of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is extremely narrow — Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction, undertake a review on merits, or re-assess factual findings — Enforcement can be refused only on grounds specified in Section 48, applied strictly. India Law Library Docid # 2425006
(244) M/S PAVAN METALS REFINERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Scope of Inquiry — Prima Facie Existence of Arbitration Agreement — At the stage of deciding a petition under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator, the referral court’s inquiry is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and not other issues, including the merits or limitation period of the underlying claims. (In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements followed). India Law Library Docid # 2425007
(245) KOUSHALYA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Bank Account Freezing/Attachment — Effect of ED's Statement — Where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) informs the High Court that amounts lying in bank accounts (previously subject to debit freeze and/or provisional attachment) have been transferred to the ED and that no further debit freeze is required or operative, the High Court may dispose of appeals concerning the freeze by recording this position and directing the ED to communicate the same to the India Law Library Docid # 2425008
(246) VIRENDER KHANNA AND ASSOCIATES Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — For the purpose of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6), the Court is required only to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement — Objections regarding the capacity or authorization of a party to invoke arbitration are matters to be considered by the duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal. India Law Library Docid # 2425009
(247) SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Lis Pendens — Collusive Suit — The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to bar a transfer if the suit during the pendency of which the transfer occurs is found to be collusive — A suit filed with the apparent intent to defeat a known, impending transfer, especially when filed just before the transfer and followed by a compromise decree favouring the plaintiff without disclosing the transfer to the court, points towards collusion. India Law Library Docid # 2425023
(248) HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. ASHEESH VAID AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Scope of Inquiry — While adjudicating an application under Section 11(6), the Court’s role is primarily limited to examining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement — It is generally not supposed to delve into disputed questions of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2425024
(249) STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURDIT SINGH @ VISHAL AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(3) — Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal — An appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal only if the findings of the trial court are perverse, contrary to law, or based on a misappreciation of evidence leading to a miscarriage of justice — The presumption of innocence is further strengthened upon acquittal. India Law Library Docid # 2425025
(250) MS. INDER PAL KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 299 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 104, O. XLIII R. 1 — Appeal from Order — Probate Proceedings — Appeal challenging the dismissal of a probate petition concerning an unregistered Will dated 02.08.2009 and the concurrent upholding of an earlier registered Will dated 16.03.2005 by the Probate Court — Scope of appellate review under the relevant provisions assessed. India Law Library Docid # 2423960
(251) S M MATLOOB Vs. ASMA PARVEEN AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Letters Patent Appeal — Scope — Challenge to dismissal of Review Petition — Intervention Application — Present Letters Patent Appeal arises from the dismissal of a review petition by the learned Single Judge — the review petition itself sought review of an order dismissing the appellant's second application for intervention in a disposed-of writ petition. India Law Library Docid # 2423961
(252) DILIP TRIPATHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Evidence — Hostile Witness — Evidentiary Value — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 145, 154 — Court observed that merely because a witness resiles from parts of police statement, entire testimony not discarded — Portions corroborating earlier testimony, if duly supported, can be relied upon — Deviations may be natural but testimony read as a whole, if truthful, can be relied upon. India Law Library Docid # 2423962
(253) M/S. PRARAM INFRA THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI PRAYANK JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 27-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 160 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Notice to Advocate — A notice issued under S. 160 Cr.P.C. to an advocate, requiring appearance and signature sample merely for verifying a signature on a notice previously sent by the advocate on behalf of the complainant to the accused, is impermissible and liable to be quashed — Such an advocate, acting solely in their professional capacity for the complainant and not involved in any illegal purpose related to the India Law Library Docid # 2424136
(254) RADHIKA KAMAL MIRANI @ RASHMI VIJAY RIJHWANI Vs. NISHA PURSHOTAM MIRANI[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXVII Rule 1(2)(b)(i) — Summary Suit — Debt or Liquidated Demand — Requirement of Written Contract — A summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1(2)(b)(i) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking recovery of a debt or liquidated demand in money based on a contract, is maintainable only if such debt or demand arises “on a written contract” — The legislative history, particularly the 1966 Bombay High Court Amendment and the 1976 Central Amendment to the CPC, makes India Law Library Docid # 2424279
(255) SMT. RAJAVVA Vs. MALLESH AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 27-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 372 (Proviso) — Appeal Against Acquittal by Victim/Complainant — Scope of Appellate Review — While an appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal (filed by the victim/complainant under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC) has full power to review, re-appreciate, and reconsider the entire evidence, it must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence favouring the accused (initial presumption plus reinforcement by acquittal) — Interference with acqu India Law Library Docid # 2424438
(256) HERITAGE FOODS (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. GOOD HEALTH AGROTECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 12 — Honest Concurrent Use — Registration of Identical/Similar Marks — Where evidence demonstrates that the respondent adopted and commercially used the trademark ‘HERITAGE’ for specific goods (edible oils) honestly and bona fide from a date (early 1995) nearly contemporaneous with the petitioner’s commencement of commercial use of the same mark for different goods (dairy products etc., from 1993-94), such use qualifies as ‘honest concurrent use’ under Section 12, India Law Library Docid # 2424457
(257) JACOB P. PAUL @ THAMPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 239 — Discharge — Scope of Consideration — At the stage of considering an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the court’s inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists against the accused based on the materials produced by the prosecution (final report and accompanying documents) — The court must proceed on the assumption that the prosecution material is true and evaluate if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at face v India Law Library Docid # 2424589
(258) KORAH A.G Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 173(8) — Further Investigation — Power of Magistrate — A Magistrate has the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC at any stage before the commencement of the trial, which begins only after charges are framed — The dismissal of a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC does not extinguish this power, as the trial has not yet commenced. India Law Library Docid # 2424590
(259) MOBITHA M.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) — Section 3(1) — Preventive Detention — Detention while in Judicial Custody — Compelling Reasons — Subjective Satisfaction — An order of preventive detention under KAAPA can be validly passed against a person already in judicial custody if the detaining authority, based on reliable materials, forms a subjective satisfaction that (a) there is a real possibility of the person being released on bail, and (b) upon such release, the person India Law Library Docid # 2424591
(260) VEMULA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-03-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every possible hypothesis of innocence — Each circumstance must be fully proved, consistent only with guilt, and conclusive in nature. India Law Library Docid # 2424775