(941) SMT. SHASHI GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS Vs. NARINDER KUMAR SOOD (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 21 Rule 102 — Objections by Transferee Pendente Lite — Objections filed under Order 21 Rule 97 or 99 CPC by a third party resisting execution are expressly barred by Rule 102 if that party is a transferee pendente lite from the judgment-debtor, having acquired the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed — The Executing Court is debarred from entertaining or adjudicating India Law Library Docid # 2425026
(942) JAGDISH Vs. HARISH CHANDER AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17, Proviso — Amendment After Commencement of Trial — The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC strictly prohibits the allowance of an application for amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began. India Law Library Docid # 2425027
(943) SATBIR AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM NARAIN AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Hindu Law — Inheritance — Widow’s Remarriage (Karewa) — Under customary law, as recognized by judicial precedents and prior legislation (like the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856), a widow upon contracting a Karewa marriage (a recognized form of remarriage) is divested of her right to the property inherited from her deceased husband — Her estate in that property ceases upon remarriage. India Law Library Docid # 2425028
(944) NIRMAL SINGH SEHMBEY Vs. KULDIP SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser — An application by a subsequent purchaser to be impleaded in a suit concerning the property is liable to be dismissed if the transfer occurred during the pendency of the lis and the original vendor, from whom the applicant purchased, was already a party — The doctrine of lis pendens applies, making the subsequent purchaser neither a necessary nor a proper party whose presence is required for adjudication. India Law Library Docid # 2425029
(945) KISHAN CHAND (THROUGH LRS) AND OTHERS Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Proof — In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff (vendee) must plead and prove their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the agreement. India Law Library Docid # 2425030
(946) MANJU PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation in Fatal Accident Claim (FAO-5554-2011) — Assessment Principles — Unmarried Deceased Aged 20 — Multiplier Selection — Future Prospects — Conventional Heads — For assessing compensation in the case of a deceased aged 20 years and unmarried, the relevant principles include India Law Library Docid # 2425031
(947) DALBARA SINGH @ DARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306 & 498-A — Sentencing — Modification of Sentence — Prayer Limited to Sentence Reduction — Principle of Proportionality — Where an appeal against conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC is restricted only to the quantum of sentence, the court considers factors like the sentence already undergone, the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for the specific offences, the period elapsed since the incident, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing India Law Library Docid # 2425032
(948) KAMALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 16(4A) — Reservation in Promotion — Requirement of Quantifiable Data on Inadequacy of Representation — Before providing for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) under Article 16(4A), the State is mandatorily required to collect quantifiable data to demonstrate the inadequacy of representation of these categories in the relevant posts — This exercise must precede the formation of the opinion and the issuance of India Law Library Docid # 2425116
(949) M/S. KESORAM RAYON AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11A — Powers of Industrial Tribunal — Re-appreciation of Evidence — Domestic Enquiry — Section 11A empowers the Industrial Tribunal, when adjudicating a dispute relating to dismissal or discharge, to re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself as to the guilt of the workman — The Tribunal is not bound by the findings of the domestic enquiry officer and can differ both on the finding of misconduct and the appropriateness of India Law Library Docid # 2425209
(950) SAHEB RAM @ RAJJO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Criminal Law — Protection of Victim Identity — Rape/Sexual Assault — In line with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena Vs. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703, the identity of victims of rape/sexual abuse, whether minor or adult, must be protected — Accordingly, the adult female victim is referred to as ‘prosecutrix/victim’. India Law Library Docid # 2425354
(951) SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Service Law — Recruitment — Eligibility — Cut-off Date — The eligibility of a candidate for appointment to a post, including possession of requisite qualifications and registration, must generally be determined as on the cut-off date specified in the advertisement or recruitment rules, unless otherwise provided. India Law Library Docid # 2425355
(952) SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 378 — Appeal Against Acquittal — Scope of Interference — An appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal only for compelling and substantial reasons, such as when the trial court’s findings are clearly unreasonable, perverse, contrary to evidence, or based on misreading or ignoring material evidence — If the view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable one based on the evidence on record, the acquittal should not be d India Law Library Docid # 2425356
(953) MADAN LAL Vs. OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order XXXII Rule 3 & Rule 15 — Appointment of Guardian for Suit — Persons of Unsound Mind/Mental Infirmity — Rule 15 extends the provisions for appointing a guardian ad litem (Rule 3) to persons adjudged of unsound mind and also to those who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable of protecting their interests when suing or being sued, by reason of any mental infirmity. India Law Library Docid # 2425357
(954) MANOJ KUMAR NAAI AND ANOTHER Vs. SATYANARAYAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Constitution of India — Article 227 — Scope of Superintendence — Interlocutory Orders — Closure of Evidence — The power of superintendence under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate, and should be invoked sparingly, primarily in instances of manifest miscarriage of justice — The High Court will generally refrain from interfering with a Trial Court’s interlocutory order closing a party’s evidence, especially when the India Law Library Docid # 2425358
(955) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SAMMA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Sections 22A, 22B, 22C — Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) — Public Utility Service — The jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22B is confined to disputes concerning “public utility services” as defined or included under the Act — While hospital services fall under this definition, the dispute itself must pertain to the rendering of such service by the utility provider. India Law Library Docid # 2425359
(956) HEMARAM MEGHWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal Against Acquittal — Scope of Interference — An appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, must adhere to established principles — acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; interference requires “compelling and substantial reasons”; the appellate court can re-appreciate evidence but cannot overturn the acquittal merely because another view is India Law Library Docid # 2425360
(957) KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 203, 204 — Cognizance and Issuance of Process — Scope of Inquiry — Prima Facie Case — At the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate/Court is required to apply judicial mind only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out based on the material on record — The Court is not required to analyze the evidence meticulously as if conducting a trial or determine if the evidence is sufficient for conviction — The existence of India Law Library Docid # 2425389
(958) NAGENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 01-04-2025 Service Law — Appointment based on Fraud/Forged Documents — Validity of Appointment — Requirement of Disciplinary Inquiry — Natural Justice — An appointment to public service secured through fraud, specifically by relying on a forged document pertaining to an essential eligibility qualification (like an 'O' level computer certificate), is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law — In such cases, the principles of natural justice are satisfied by providing the employee with a show-cause noti India Law Library Docid # 2425390
(959) SUNITA NISHAD AND ANOTHER Vs. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THROUGH REGISTRAR AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 01-04-2025 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Section 13(2) — Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — Rule 3(1), 3(4) — Service of Demand Notice — Presumption of Service — General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114 — Service of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is deemed sufficient under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evi India Law Library Docid # 2425391
(960) SMT. SUSHEELA DEVI @ SUSHEELA Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 01-04-2025 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Sections 131(d) & 131-B — U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 — Section 27(3) — Rights of Allottee of Ceiling Surplus Land — Evolution to Transferable Rights — A person settled with ceiling surplus land under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 acquired the status of a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights with effect from 01.07.1981 by virtue of Section 131(d) of the U.P. Zamindari Ab India Law Library Docid # 2425392