(1) ANITA DEVI @ MAYA Vs. OMPRAKASH[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101-103; Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Proof of Will — Burden of Proof — In a suit challenging the validity of a Will, while the initial onus lies on the propounder (defendant asserting the Will) to establish its due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances, the burden to prove that the Will is forged, fabricated, or otherwise invalid rests on the party alleging it (plaintiffs challenging the Will) — Framing an issue regarding the Will's invalidity with t India Law Library Docid # 2424101
(2) NASEEM UDDIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P) AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Service Law — Transfer — Judicial Review — Scope Limited — Judicial review of transfer orders is confined to narrow grounds, primarily violation of statutory provisions or established mala fides — The burden of proving mala fides rests heavily on the petitioner challenging the transfer — Transfer remains an incident of service, and courts lack the expertise for personnel management across government departments, leaving decisions largely to departmental heads subject to limited India Law Library Docid # 2424132
(3) OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. VISHNUPRASAD S/O SIDDHANATH (DIED) THROUGH LRS. GANGABAI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Concurrent Findings of Fact — A second appeal is maintainable only when a substantial question of law is involved — The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC does not extend to interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, unless such findings are demonstrated to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law. India Law Library Docid # 2424133
(4) SMT. BINDU PAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH WESTERN RAILWAY[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c), 124-A — Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Section 16 — Bona Fide Passenger — Burden of Proof — Non-recovery of Ticket — In a claim for compensation arising from an untoward incident resulting in the passenger's death and severe mutilation/scattering of body parts, the mere non-recovery of the journey ticket does not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger — Following the principle that the initial burden on the claimant to plead posses India Law Library Docid # 2424134
(5) SMT. FARJANA BEE AND OTHERS Vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 & 173 — Assessment of Compensation — Notional Income & Future Prospects — In the absence of documentary proof of income of the deceased (aged 46), the assessment for determining just compensation should consider the applicable minimum wages to reflect the deceased's skill level and preserve the family's standard of living — Furthermore, addition for future prospects (25% in this case) is a mandatory component as established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v India Law Library Docid # 2424135
(6) 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
(7) 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
(8) 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
(9) 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
(10) DQS CERTIFICATION INDIA PVT.LTD. Vs. ISACA INC. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with S. 151 — Rejection/Return of Plaint — Application by Defendant No.1 — Instant application filed by defendant No.1 seeking rejection/return of plaint instituted by Indian plaintiff, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the governing License Agreement favouring foreign courts and principles of forum non conveniens. India Law Library Docid # 2423963
(11) SHASMITH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Rejection of Plaint — Pre-institution Mediation — Petition challenges Trial Court's order dismissing defendant/petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of a commercial suit on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 India Law Library Docid # 2423964
(12) M/S DEWAN CHAND Vs. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025 Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrator — Procedural History — Successive Petitions — Withdrawal of Prior Petitions — The present petition represents the petitioner's third attempt to seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 — The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to file afresh— The second petition was subsequently filed and later dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, without any liberty being granted to file afresh. India Law Library Docid # 2423965
(13) PARMESHWAR KUMAR BAGGA Vs. AVINASH BAGGA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151, Section 144 — Consent Decree — Application for Setting Aside — Challenge to Dismissal — Petition filed under Article 227 challenging Trial Court's order dated 20.09.2022, which dismissed petitioner/plaintiff's application seeking setting aside of a consent decree passed on 01.07.2022 in a suit for possession and mesne profits against his brother. India Law Library Docid # 2423966
(14) VINOD RAGHUVANSHI Vs. AJAY ARORA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 391 — Additional Evidence in Appeal — Scope and Limitations — The power vested in the appellate court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to take additional evidence is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly — It is primarily intended for situations where the party seeking to adduce evidence was prevented from doing so during the trial despite due diligence, or where new facts necessitating such evidence came to light later — The core objective is to ensure j India Law Library Docid # 2424137
(15) SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (CELLULAR) THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. MRUGESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL SHAH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJAT SINGH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 26-03-2025 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Unauthorized Absence — Wilfulness — While unauthorized absence from duty does not always equate to wilful absence, especially if caused by compelling circumstances beyond the employee's control, the principle requiring the disciplinary authority to establish wilfulness (Krushna Kant B Parmar) is not an absolute rule — In cases of prolonged unauthorized absence, particularly where leave applications were rejected or not sanctioned, and the employee fails t India Law Library Docid # 2424138
(16) GOPAL KRISHNA Vs. ANANDPALSINGH S/O GYANPALSINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS DEEPAK SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 26-03-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 58(c) — Mortgage by Conditional Sale — Interpretation of Document — A document titled "Shartiya Frokhtnama" containing an explicit condition for reconveyance upon repayment of the consideration amount within a specified period (five years) constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale under S. 58(c), not an outright sale — The interpretation considers the specific terms embedded within the document itself, the legal maxim "once a India Law Library Docid # 2424139
(17) M/S HOTLINE FASHION INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S SENTINEL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 97, Section 151 — Execution of Decree — Objections by Third Party — Resistance to Possession — Independent Right and Title Claim — Execution First Appeal preferred by appellant-objector challenging Executing Court's order dated 08.07.2023, dismissing its application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC resisting execution of a specific performance decree concerning basement property No. A-249, Defence Colony, New Delhi. India Law Library Docid # 2423968
(18) SURESH KUMARI Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 18 — Assets of Corporate Debtor — Property Law — Real Estate Project — Rights of Homebuyers — Where a National Company Law Tribunal, in a decision subsequently revived and upheld by the Supreme Court, conclusively determined that a Corporate Debtor involved in a real estate project acted merely as a contractor and possessed no right, title, or interest in the project land or the units constructed thereon, with ownersh India Law Library Docid # 2423969
(19) POOJA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 439(2) and 482 — Cancellation of Bail — Supervening Circumstances — Effect of Passage of Time and Interim Protection — Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming supervening circumstances demonstrating misuse of liberty, interference with justice, or other factors rendering the accused's continued freedom detrimental to a fair trial — It India Law Library Docid # 2424013
(20) S.K. JOSHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-03-2025 Constitution of India — Article 226 — Departmental Inquiry — Quashing of Chargesheet — Misinterpretation of Court Order — Where a chargesheet alleges dereliction of duty against an official based on the premise that an adverse ex-parte order was passed against the State due to his inaction, but a perusal of the said High Court order reveals it merely directed consideration of a representation without granting substantive relief, the charges are founded on a misreading or misinterpretation of the India Law Library Docid # 2424140