ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(981) MOTAN DAS AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025
Constitution of India — Article 243-Q — Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 3 — Constitution of Municipalities — Governor’s Discretion — Parameters — Article 243-Q(2) vests discretionary power in the Governor (exercised by the State Government) to specify areas as transitional, smaller urban, or larger urban areas, having regard to prescribed factors like population, density, revenue, etc — It does not mandate the issuance of a separate notification laying down uniform parameters for th
India Law Library Docid # 2424225

(982) AIMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. MUKESH KUMAR BERWA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025
Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Eligibility Criteria — Relevant Date — Governing Policy/Rules — Retrospectivity — The eligibility of a dependent for compassionate appointment must be determined based on the rules or policy prevailing on the date of death of the government servant — Where a condition imposing non-eligibility (such as having more than two children after a specified cut-off date) is introduced through a Government notification or policy after the employee’s death, and suc
India Law Library Docid # 2424235

(983) BRIJESH KUMAR MEENA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-02-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Hostile Witnesses — Conviction under Ss. 7 and 13 requires unimpeachable proof of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt — Where the complainant (PW16) and the alleged victims (PW14, PW15, PW20) from whom bribe was allegedly demanded/extorted turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case regarding such demand or acceptance, the foundational require
India Law Library Docid # 2424267

(984) ANWAR DHEBAR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH-ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. E.D.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Bail — Twin Conditions Post Vijay Madanlal Choudhary — The mandatory twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA (reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail) are constitutionally valid and applicable, overriding general bail provisions, as affirmed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India.
India Law Library Docid # 2424665

(985) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMRUDDHI SAVING AND INVESTMENT (I) LTD.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 — Section 45-MC — Power to File Winding Up Petition — The Reserve Bank of India”s power to file a winding-up petition under Section 45-MC is specifically applicable to a “non-banking financial company” (NBFC)
India Law Library Docid # 2424666

(986) BALDAU NISHAD Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Section 8 & IPC Sections 354, 354A — Proof of Offence — Conviction under Section 8 POCSO Act (Sexual assault) and Sections 354/354A IPC (Assault/Sexual harassment intending to outrage modesty) can be based on the clear and consistent testimony of the minor victim supported by corroborative evidence like statements of family members and proof establishing the victim”s age below 18 years.
India Law Library Docid # 2424667

(987) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. NO. JC-2443300P HONY NB SUB PRAKASH CHAND[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — A Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches if filed after an inordinate delay (over one year) without sufficient cause, especially when a prior application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to similar delay, and the Tribunal has noted non-implementation of the original order.
India Law Library Docid # 2423014

(988) BEAS SATLUJ LINK PARIYOJNA VISTHAPIT SANGH Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 — Land allotted to oustees, excluded from a forest department's Working Plan and management since its initial allotment, is not subject to forest land restrictions, allowing free utilization, as clarified through a comprehensive affidavit from the respondents
India Law Library Docid # 2423015

(989) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
State of Himachal Pradesh Regularization Policy 2020 — Regularization of Employment — “Bill Basis” vs. “Daily Wage Basis” — The Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, upholding the Learned Single Judge's decision to direct the regularization of a "bill basis" employee, finding no intelligible difference between "daily wage worker" and "bill basis worker" under the State's regularization policy
India Law Library Docid # 2423016

(990) SUBHADRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Letters Patent Appeal — Infructuous Appeals — Subsequent Events and Third-Party Rights — The Court disposed of a Letters Patent Appeal as infructuous, citing the emergence of a fresh cause of action for the appellant due to subsequent events, specifically a new recruitment process, which has led to the appointment of a third party who would be affected by any orders in the appea
India Law Library Docid # 2423017

(991) SRI. SANJEEV Vs. GYANAPPA DALAWAYI[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 27-02-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 5 Rule 28 — Service of notice on soldiers, sailors, or airmen — Service of notice on a soldier, in accordance with Order 5 Rule 28 of the CPC, requires sending the summons to the commanding officer along with a copy to be retained by the defendant, and failure to comply with this provision may render the service of notice improper.
India Law Library Docid # 2423123

(992) GURPRABH SINGH @ PRINCE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 22, 29, 61, 85, and 37 — Where the recovery of contraband is only marginally above the commercial quantity, the court may relax the stringent conditions of Section 37, which otherwise bars the grant of bail, if the accused is a first-time offender with no other cases registered against them, has been in custody since the date of the FIR, and where prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, thereby permitting the grant
India Law Library Docid # 2423138

(993) NAINA RAM Vs. STATA OF RAIASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Rejection of an application for the position of Safai Karamchari (sanitation worker) due to incomplete documentation, specifically the lack of an affidavit for the work experience certificate and an outdated OBC (Other Backward Class) certificate — The petitioner argues that the requirement for the affidavit was not properly communicated — The court finds that the respondents' approach was flawed, as the requirement for the affidavit was not clearly sta
India Law Library Docid # 2423269

(994) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. OSMANBHAI BHABHABHI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — An appellate court will not disturb a judgment of acquittal unless the trial court's view of the evidence is perverse or unsustainable in law, respecting the double presumption of innocence when the prosecution's evidence is weak and contradictory.
India Law Library Docid # 2423320

(995) M/S. CORVINE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SRINIVASULU KANDAY[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 9 and 17 — Commercial Court's order closing interim protection application under Section 9, upheld on appeal, as the Court had not ‘entertained’ the matter and the remedy under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal was not shown to be inefficacious.
India Law Library Docid # 2423348

(996) M/S SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD Vs. M/S H.B.T GMBH[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 11(6), 16, and 45 — The Commercial Court's rejection of a plaint under CPC Order VII Rule 11(d) is upheld as the suit seeking to restrain arbitration proceedings is barred by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Section 16 and 5, emphasizing that disputes on arbitration agreement validity and jurisdiction should be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, not Civil Courts.
India Law Library Docid # 2423349

(997) ON THE DEATH OF MD. JAMAL KHAN, HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY ABUL KALAM AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI RAMEN SARMA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Contract Act, 1872 — Section 29 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53A — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — An agreement for the sale of land lacking a certain and identifiable description of the property is void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, and a suit for specific performance requires specific pleadings demonstrating the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract — The High Court dismissed appeal filed against the judgment and decree
India Law Library Docid # 2423464

(998) PRAMESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. SRI MANIK DAS AND OTHERS[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Sections 96, 100 and Order 41 — Evidence Act, Sections 65 and 67 — A judgment can be set aside, and the matter remanded if the lower courts failed to properly consider and exhibit documents according to the Indian Evidence Act and did not adequately address a crucial factual error in the plaint — Appeal against the reversal of a trial court's eviction decree was allowed, setting aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanding the case to the trial court for fr
India Law Library Docid # 2423474

(999) RAJESH DEBBARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 — Draftsman Grade-III employees in the PWD, initially in the pay scale of Rs. 560-1,300/-, are entitled to be treated similarly to Surveyors and granted the revised pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- as per the Rules, 1988, based on prior judgments of the High Court concerning Surveyors in the same initial pay scale — The High Court of Tripura allowed a writ petition filed by Draftsman Grade-III employees seeking a revised pay scale equivalent to
India Law Library Docid # 2423533

(1000) GAUTAM KUMAR SAHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 27-02-2025
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 — Employees appointed before the implementation of revised pay rules should not receive a pay scale lower than the revised scale of the grade corresponding to their existing pay scale — The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Draftsman Grade-III employees, holding that they are entitled to the same revised pay scale (Rs.1,450-3,710/-) under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, as Surveyors who were in the same
India Law Library Docid # 2423534