ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(61) AMEY SANJAY JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 — Sections 37, 42 and 50 — Possession of 1300 grams of charas — The applicant seeks bail due to alleged procedural violations under the NDPS Act, including unauthorized nighttime raid, lack of statutory notice, and delays in legal formalities — The prosecution argues against bail citing the large quantity of drugs found and the need for strict adherence to Section 37 — However, the court grants bail, noting discrepancies in the evidence, proced
India Law Library Docid # 2421402

(62) WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB AND OTHERS Vs. NAGNESH ALIAS B.S. AKHADE AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Eviction — In a dispute over a leased land, a club Plaintiff sued to evict a former employee Defendant from a specific hut, with the suit partially decreed in favor of the Plaintiff — The Plaintiff sought to execute the decree for possession of the entire green-shaded land on the plan, not just the hut, while the Defendant argued the suit was limited to the hut — The Executing Court held the decree fully executed upon possession of the hut, closing the proceedings — The main issue was whether th
India Law Library Docid # 2421403

(63) CHARUSHILA BIRA SHRIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 — Sections 3 and 35 — A writ petition challenged a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch elected after the previous one resigned — The key issue was whether the two-year immunity against such motions, under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, starts from the first Sarpanch's election or the new Sarpanch's election — The court ruled that the immunity period begins from the first Sarpanch's election, applying to the post rather than the individual —
India Law Library Docid # 2421404

(64) JINDAL COCOA LLP AND OTHERS Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Sections 21 and 35A — Jindal Cocoa LLP challenged HDFC Bank's reversal of government subvention for export credit, disputing the RBI Master Circular's interpretation on document submission timelines and subvention eligibility — The court ruled that late document submission does not disqualify credit if exports are completed within 450 days, reinstating the subvention for the First Lot but denying it for the Second Lot where exports failed to materialize within the
India Law Library Docid # 2421405

(65) SMT. PIN MAYA KUMAL Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ARMY AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 03-01-2025
Army Regulations — Regulation 333 — Family pension benefits — The petitioner, the second wife of late Subedar 'T', sought family pension but was denied due to her name not being in his service records and their marriage being considered void under Army Regulations — She argued her first marriage was void due to underage bride, and she wasn't responsible for her name missing in records — Respondents said her marriage was void as 'T' married her while still married to his first wife without proper
India Law Library Docid # 2421451

(66) DEVENDRA BALUBHAI GHOTKULE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f), 11(1)(h) and 11(1)(k) — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 — When animals are seized in connection with a crime, particularly involving cruelty or illegal transportation, the custody of the animals should be given to an infirmary, Pinjarapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization, or Gaushala during the pendency of litigation — The court emphasized that the
India Law Library Docid # 2421463

(67) MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. RANVEER SINGH CHAUHAN[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 91 — Petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition against an order dismissing his application to call for records from a previous case — The court questioned whether the petitioner could use records from a terminated case to continue proceedings — Petitioner argued that the earlier case's evidence should be considered and that continuing from the previous stage would prevent gaps in the complainant's evidence — The court considered the previou
India Law Library Docid # 2421455

(68) IMTIYAZ @ LALA S/O FIROJ MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 — Sections 8(C), 22(c), 29 and 37 — Appellant arrested for drug trafficking with 100 grams of Mephedrone worth Rs. 5,00,000/-, sought bail after four years in jail, following a rejected previous application — His counsel argued long incarceration, no direct drug recovery on him, and leniency towards co-accused — The State countered with the commercial quantity of drugs, his clear role in the offense, and the progress of the trial — The cour
India Law Library Docid # 2421458

(69) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VASHRAMBHAI MULJIBHAI VANKAR AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 143, 147, 504, 302 read with Section 149 — Murder — Appeal against Acquittal — Dispute over a cot — The case involved a deceased woman who died due to a ruptured spleen — The State argued that the Trial Court failed to properly assess the evidence of key witnesses, including the complainant, the deceased's husband, and another son — The court also argued that medical evidence indicated the assault led to the death, and therefore, the accused should be convicted
India Law Library Docid # 2421460

(70) DOMENDRA OJHA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 03-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 —Murder of two children — Trial court erred in convicting the appellants by applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which concerns the burden of proof for facts especially within one's knowledge — The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish key facts: that the appellants were home with the children at the time of the incident, that the seized articles were recovered from the appellants, and a motiv
India Law Library Docid # 2421506

(71) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SANTHI AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Enhancement of Compensation — Death in road Accident — Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000 — The MACT awarded Rs. 53,48,200, deducting 10% for contributory negligence — The insurance company appealed to set aside the award, while the petitioners sought to enhance it — Issues included the rider's negligence, the deceased's contributory negligence, compensation adequacy, and income calculation — The court found the accid
India Law Library Docid # 2421345

(72) SELVARAJ Vs. RAJESWARI AND ANOTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to protect their possession of the suit property — They claimed ownership based on a family arrangement and subsequent possession — The defendant claimed ownership of the property based on a sale deed from a third party, asserting that he was the rightful owner — Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they had proved their
India Law Library Docid # 2421346

(73) RAMAIYAN AND OTHERS Vs. SANTHAKUMARI AND ANOTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Customary easement — The plaintiff sued for a declaration of a customary easement to draw water from a field bothie (Kanni) on the defendants' land and for an injunction against obstruction — Both lower courts granted the plaintiff's claims, citing evidence like a sale deed and a Tahsildar's order — The defendants appealed, disputing the Tahsildar's order's binding authority — The higher court upheld the
India Law Library Docid # 2421347

(74) RAJAMMA Vs. MURUGESAN[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Property Dispute — The plaintiff claimed full ownership of a property, disputing his sister's (defendant) right to reside there. The Trial Court partially granted the plaintiff's claim, acknowledging his residence but also recognizing the defendant's in a separate structure. The First Appellate Court reversed, ruling the plaintiff owned the entire property. On appeal, the court found that both siblings had been residing on the property, with the plaintiff having a Patta and the defendant having
India Law Library Docid # 2421348

(75) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — Section 14B — The Employees Provident Fund Organization challenged an Appellate Tribunal order that set aside damages levied on a cooperative bank for delayed EPF remittance — The petitioner argued the appeal was filed past the limitation period, making the Tribunal's order illegal — The bank claimed the Tribunal rightly considered their merits and that they were distinct from other establishments — The court found the appeal was
India Law Library Docid # 2421349

(76) SHILPA AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Parole — Appellant was imprisoned for nearly 7 years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought 8 weeks of parole to recover from a recent total hip replacement surgery — Despite no prior parole or furlough and good behavior in jail, the State had reservations and initially questioned her address — After confirming the address, the court, recognizing the urgent need for recuperation, granted parole directly for 8 weeks from 04.01.2025 to 03.03.2025, with conditions including sur
India Law Library Docid # 2421351

(77) SAJID ALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The petitioner's bail was cancelled and bonds forfeited on 07.03.2024 after failing to appear, despite warrants issued since 01.10.2021 — He was convicted under Section 138 with a suspended sentence contingent on a Rs. 7 lakh compensation deposit, which he made — After a failed attempt to exempt himself from appearance and subsequent bail cancellation, he deposited Rs. 15 lakhs and later the full required Rs. 41 lakhs by 02.01.2025 — The court, co
India Law Library Docid # 2421352

(78) TARUN BAHL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 02-01-2025
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 5 — Officials Secrets Act, 1923 — Sections 3 and 5 — Detention — The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, following his implication in three FIRs — Despite being granted bail in two cases, he was detained preventively — The District Magistrate initially rejected the detention dossier but later approved a revised one with additional details — The petitioner's representations against detention were rejected without notification — The
India Law Library Docid # 2421357

(79) SHEHZAD ALI SHAH Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363, 366, and 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 — Kidnapping and raping a minor — The main issue was whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident — The appellant argued that the evidence regarding the victim's age was insufficient and unreliable — The prosecution relied on the school admission register, which recorded the victim's date of birth as 17.03.2002 — The court held that the school record was credible
India Law Library Docid # 2421359

(80) THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER H.P. TELECOM CIRCLE AND OTHERS Vs. SH. KASHMIR SINGH (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR)[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 02-01-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — The court clarified that the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court under Section 11(6) is not an exercise of its original civil jurisdiction — This distinction is crucial because the definition of "court" under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act includes the High Court when it exercises its original civil jurisdiction — However, when the High Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is acting under
India Law Library Docid # 2421360