ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(41) SYED MAMOOR ALI @ MAMOOR BHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 120-B, 153-A, 153-B and 295-A — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 — Appellant was arrested for alleged involvement in radical activities and conspiracy to attack an Ordnance Factory under IPC and UAPA sections — He sought bail, arguing falsification of charges and lack of criminal history — The prosecution presented evidence of radical content, associations, and plans, citing UAPA's strict bail provisions — The c
India Law Library Docid # 2421474

(42) KAILASH Vs. BHAGWATILAL AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 — Injunction — Petitioner sued defendant No.1 for specific performance of a contract to sell land for Rs. 36,11,000, claiming receipt of Rs. 50,000 as earnest money — He sought a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from selling the land — The defendant denied the agreement and showed another sale agreement — The main issue was whether petitioner deserved an injunction given the unstamped and unregistered sale agreement
India Law Library Docid # 2421475

(43) AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER MADHUR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2025
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 13(2) and 14 — The Petitioner-Bank sought to restore possession of a mortgaged property after the borrower defaulted and re-entered unlawfully — The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the previous order for possession had been complied with on 13.03.2024, and no fresh direction could be issued — The court emphasized that it was the bank's responsibility to protect the property a
India Law Library Docid # 2421476

(44) VIKRAM SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1B)(a) — Appellant appealed his conviction for gunshot wounds in a confrontation with ‘M’ on 14.05.1998, where he was convicted — The court found the prosecution's case doubtful due to unexplained injuries, lapses in the seizure process, and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony — The court cited precedents from Rajesh v. State of M.P., Hari Om v. State of U.P., and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar — The court also cited
India Law Library Docid # 2421477

(45) MAHESH PATEL Vs. YASHWANT NETRAM AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 06-01-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — The court allowed the partner's application under Section, appointing Shri Sunil Jain as arbitrator, ruling that the partner had the right to invoke arbitration, the clause was properly invoked against other partners, and the claims were not barred by limitation — The Arbitrator has the power to dissolve the partnership, distinguishing previous cases and applying principles that the limitation period starts from non-compliance with arbitr
India Law Library Docid # 2421478

(46) LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALU @ DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-01-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 8 — When all the land is acquired for the same public purpose, landowners are entitled to receive uniform compensation, regardless of the land's categorization — This principle applies when no part of the acquired land is left out for development activity — Court determined that no deductions for development charges are permitted when land is acquired for purposes such as road or railway construction — This is because the aim of such acquisitions is
India Law Library Docid # 2421427

(47) RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 04-01-2025
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 126(2), 115(2),117(2), 3(5) and 109 — Three petitioners sought bail after being accused in an FIR related to an assault — Their anticipatory bail was rejected but interim bail was granted after they cooperated with the investigation and no further custodial interrogation was needed — The court, considering personal liberty and the principles of bail, allowed their bail with conditions to ensure their attendance at trial and prevent tampering with evidence
India Law Library Docid # 2421432

(48) SURENDRA PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 — Section 48(e) — Land Dispute — Petitioner claimed land ownership — Deputy Collector Land Reforms declared respondent no. 6 as bataidar — Petitioner's appeal dismissed by Additional Collector — Instead of other legal options, petitioner filed a writ petition in High Court, seeking to prevent authorities from interfering with land title, restrain private respondent, and overturn DCLR and Additional Collector's orders — Petitioner argued against authority interference and
India Law Library Docid # 2421343

(49) SMT. ARTI JHA Vs. BIHAR SARKAAR DVARA SHREEMAAN SACHIV MAHODAY, SHAHRI KSHETRADHIKAR, VIKAS PRADHIKAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Sale Deed — Wrong mentioning of Property No — Petitioner purchased a property, identified by Will and registered a sale deed for it — The petitioner claims the sale deed incorrectly identifies the plot number as 1149 instead of 1150 — The petitioner has obtained loans, constructed a house, and is paying municipal taxes based on the purchase — The main issue is whether the High Court should intervene to rectify the sale deed and other related documents, given the alleged error in the plot number
India Law Library Docid # 2421344

(50) DEEPAK ALIAS JATT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 29 and 61 — Petitioner was arrested for the recovery of 4 kg of opium — The petitioner, Deepak alias Jatt, sought interim bail to attend religious ceremonies for his recently deceased father, specifically the Rasam Pagdi on 04.01.2025 and the Bhog Ceremony on 15.01.2025 — Despite prior denials of interim bail for his own and his sister's marriages and his involvement in other NDPS Act cases, the court granted his request — The c
India Law Library Docid # 2421350

(51) AMJAD KHAN Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 03-01-2025
Prevention of Illicit Trafffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 —Detention — Two FIRs were registered against him under the NDPS Act, one in 2018 and another in 2023 — The court quashed the detention order of the accused because the detaining authority failed to consider his representation against
India Law Library Docid # 2421353

(52) TARSEM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 03-01-2025
Service Law — Termination — Suppression of material facts — The petitioner, appointed as a Mazdoor in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in 2004, was terminated in 2009 for providing a fake character certificate and having a criminal case pending before his appointment — He argued that he became a permanent employee after completing his probation and that his termination was stigmatizing, requiring a formal inquiry under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution — The court reviewed whether the
India Law Library Docid # 2421354

(53) UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS Vs. M/S DES RAJ NAGPAL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 03-01-2025
Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 — Section 37 — Dispute over a contract — Authorized Officer Can Represent the Union of India — The court established that the Union of India, as a party to a contract, can file an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1997 through any authorized officer, not just the officer who signed the original contract — In this case, respondent was deemed an authorized officer, as per the Government of India notification GSR No.167 — This preced
India Law Library Docid # 2421355

(54) UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER Vs. FARMAN ALI AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 03-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 21 and 22 — Flaws in Sampling Procedure — The court determined that the sampling of the seized substances was not conducted according to the mandatory procedures prescribed by the NDPS Act — The Investigating Officer improperly took samples of the capsules from the seized material, whereas the entire seized material should have been presented to a
India Law Library Docid # 2421356

(55) SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 34 — The petitioner sought to cancel bail for an accused in a murder case stemming from a land dispute — The Sessions Judge granted bail, which was appealed after the High Court previously dismissed the accused's bail petition — The central issue was whether the Sessions Judge erred in granting bail despite the High Court's finding of prima facie liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC — The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge i
India Law Library Docid # 2421361

(56) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SAZAD DEEN[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 354, 506, and 201 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 8, 9, 10 and 12 — Appeal against the acquittal — The accused was accused of molesting female students at a primary school — The trial court acquitted him, leading to an appeal — The key issue was whether the trial court correctly assessed the evidence, particularly the victim witnesses' testimonies — The State argued the trial court erred by acquitting despite credible testimoni
India Law Library Docid # 2421362

(57) SURAT RAM Vs. SUDAMA RAM (DECEASE THROUGH LRS) AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Review Petition — Petitioner filed a review petition against a High Court judgment, claiming it overlooked his tenancy rights and other issues — He argued the court misread revenue records, failed to consider material admissions, and overlooked substantial questions of law — The respondents contended there were no errors apparent on the record — The High Court dismissed the petition, stating the points raised did not constitute substantial questions of law and could not be addressed in a review
India Law Library Docid # 2421363

(58) BAINSU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. BUDHIA AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Petitioner (deceased) through legal representatives, filed a review petition against a judgment in a previous appeal — The petitioner asserted that the court had failed to decide an application for leading additional evidence, which was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 — The primary issue was whether the court's failure to address the pending application for additional evidence constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, which would
India Law Library Docid # 2421364

(59) SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. S CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1) — Market Value Determination — The court upheld the Reference Court's decision to enhance the compensation for the acquired land, finding the Land Acquisition Officer's (LAO) initial assessment to be improper and inadequate — The court agreed with the Reference Court's valuation of Rs. 1,13,000 per acre for dry land and Rs. 1,33,000 per acre for irrigated dry land with bore wells — This enhancement was based on the court's
India Law Library Docid # 2421398

(60) ATTAR CHAND BASHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 318(4), 338 and 340(2) read with 3(5) — The petitioner an ex-MLA sought anticipatory bail — He is accused of abetting the creation of fake patta documents — The prosecution's case is that A1 to A4 deceived poor people by selling fake house plots/pattas, and the petitioner is accused of assisting in the creation of these fake documents — The central issue is whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail, given the accusations against him and t
India Law Library Docid # 2421399