(1) BRIJ SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. KIRTI MANHARLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 18-12-2024 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 14, 26(D) and 35 — Whether the petitioner is entitled to possession of a flat purchased in an auction under the SARFAESI Act , despite a prior arbitration award and the appointment of a Receiver — The court determined that the security interest created in favour of the creditor, DCB Bank Limited, which was registered on 09/08/2012, and later assigned to Encore Asset Reconstruction Comp India Law Library Docid # 2421019
(2) CHANDRAKANT C. PATEL Vs. SURYAKANT SHIVLAL PARMAR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-12-2024 Bombay Rent Act, 1947 — Section 15A — Interpretation of — Exclusive Possession Requirement — The Court clarified that for a licensee to become a 'protected tenant' under Section 15A, they must be in exclusive possession of the entire premises as on 1 February 1973 — Multiple Licensees — The Court held that if multiple persons share a room as licensees on the relevant date, none of them can acquire the status of a 'deemed tenant.' India Law Library Docid # 2420995
(3) M/S MOLD TEK PACKING LTD. Vs. S.D CONTAINERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 16-12-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 6A and 6G — Discretion of the Court under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) to fix a period for the plaintiff to file a written statement in response to a counter-claim is not limited by the 90-day period stipulated under Rule 6(1) for filing a written statement against the original claim — The court emphasized that the introduction of Rule 6A(3) preserves the court's discretion to allow additional time for the plaintiff to respond to a counter-claim, beyond t India Law Library Docid # 2420808
(4) GOPAL RADHESHYAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 307, 325, 397, 341 read with 34 — Bombay Police Act, 1951 — Section 135 and 37(1)(3) — Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 199 — Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) — Predicate offences — The core legal issue in this case revolves around whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering his alleged involvement in a crime and the invocation of the (MCOC Act) — The court had to assess if there was a reasonable nexus between the applicant and an organis India Law Library Docid # 2420999
(5) APPA BHAGWAN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 14-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 390 — Robbery — Whether the conviction of the applicant for robbery was justified — The court examined if the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges, considering the evidence presented by witnesses and the circumstances of the alleged crime — The court found that the prosecution's case was weak due to several inconsistencies: there was a ‘lack of independent corroboration’, ‘discrepancies’ in the description of the accused, and a ‘failure to recover the India Law Library Docid # 2421000
(6) PUNAM SURESHRAO AUNDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 14-12-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 186, 353, 323 and 506 — Obstructing a public servant and criminal intimidation — The court found that appellant was wrongly convicted as no charge under Section 186 was framed against her, and the court determined that Section 186 is a distinct, and not a minor — Additionally, the court found no evidence that appellant had obstructed the complainant — The court also found that appellant No. 2’s convictions under Sections 353 and 506(i) were not sustainable due t India Law Library Docid # 2421022
(7) ADITYA BIRLA REAL ESTATE LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. SHRAMIK JANATA SANGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 13-12-2024 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 36(1), 36(2), 36(3) and 36(4) — The rights of representation under Section 36(1) and 36(2) of the Act are unconditional and not subject to the conditions of Section 36(4) — This means an employer can be represented by an officer of an association, even if the opposing party doesn't consent and the Labour Court/Tribunal hasn't granted leave India Law Library Docid # 2420809
(8) SMT. JANKI BAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 13-12-2024 Service Law — Regularization — An order of regularization, even if not implemented due to an interim stay, remains valid unless explicitly set aside or cancelled by a competent authority. India Law Library Docid # 2420810
(9) M/S. SHAILESH TRADERS AND OTHERS Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK)[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 13-12-2024 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 13(2) and 14 — The primary legal issue in this case is whether the petitioners' request for copies of the application, affidavit, and notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was correctly denied by the Chief Judicial Magistrate — The petitioners argue that the bank did not follow mandatory procedures under the SARFAESI Act, particularly concerning notice requirements — The court India Law Library Docid # 2421031
(10) ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 13-12-2024 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS), benefits are unit-specific, not owner-specific, meaning eligibility hinges on the unit's location and prior excise duty exemptions, not ownership changes — The court ruled that changes in ownership, name, or unit expansion do not disqualify units from BSS benefits, interpreting "eligible unit" as the manufacturing facility rather than the owner — Designed to support pre-GST exempt units in challenging areas, the BSS's eligibility India Law Library Docid # 2421040
(11) DEEPAKNEELKANTH Vs. SMT. PRIYANKA NEELKANTH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 12-12-2024 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19(4) — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9 — Destitute wife cannot be denied maintenance solely based on an ex-parte decree obtained by the husband under Section 9 of the HMA. India Law Library Docid # 2420811
(12) SEEMA BAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 12-12-2024 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — A minor girl (victim) was gang-raped by unknown persons — 19-week pregnancy — The District Court rejected the application stating that the necessary medical documents were not provided and that the pregnancy was beyond the 20-week limit under Section 3 of the MTP Act — The Court criticized the District Court for rejecting the application without considering the urgent nature of the case and the victim's status as a rape survivor — It also noted the pr India Law Library Docid # 2420812
(13) UNION OF INDIA AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DRI Vs. SMT. AMEENABI AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 12-12-2024 Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (I) — Gold Control Act, 1968 — Sections 85 (1)(ii) and 85 (1)(a) read with Section 8(1) — Whether the acquittal of Respondent No. 1 was justified — The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the gold was found in her residence — However, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Respondent No. 1 was in conscious possession of the gol India Law Library Docid # 2421001
(14) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NIM TSHERING SHERPA AND ANOTHER[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 12-12-2024 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 149(2) and 170 — Section 170 of the MV Act requires an insurance company to obtain an order from the MACT to contest a claim on grounds beyond those specified in Section 149(2) — This order is granted if the MACT finds collusion between the claimant and the person against whom the claim is made, or if the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. India Law Library Docid # 2421039
(15) NALGALLA VEERA VENKATA NAGA MOHANA MURALI RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. NAGUMOTHU VIJAYA LAKSHMI[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-12-2024 Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 — Section 3A — Interest Rates on Business Loans to Non-Agriculturists — The Court clarified that the Debt Relief Laws, which typically cap interest rates for agricultural loans, do not apply to business loans taken by non-agriculturists — The Court noted that the defendant, being a contractor, cannot claim the benefits of such laws for a business loan — The Court rejected the defendant's argument to scale down the interest rate to 6¼% India Law Library Docid # 2420721
(16) BABLOO ROUT @ PARARU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 11-12-2024 The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.1995 / 11.08.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both th India Law Library Docid # 2420994
(17) REKHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 11-12-2024 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with section 34 — Quashing of FIR — The applicants, the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law are accused of offence of harassment for dowry — The court considered whether the applicants' failure to comply with a court order to return the informant's daughter and their non-disclosure of the whereabouts of the informant's husband should preclude them from seeking relief un India Law Library Docid # 2421032
(18) MANI KUMAR SUBBA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 11-12-2024 Sikkim Government Servants’ (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 — Rules 10 and 11 — Petitioner was initially dismissed from service — Following a representation, the dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement with pension benefits — This modification was made by the Governor under Rule 10 — The modified order was then reviewed and revoked in a later order dated 14.02.2023, which restored the original dismissal penalty — The court ruled that the order revoking the modified penalty (dated 14. India Law Library Docid # 2421038
(19) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 11-12-2024 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 9, 11, 18 and 25 — Enhancement of market value for land acquired for the expansion of Mumbai Airport — The claimants sought an increase in the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), arguing that the market value was inadequate — The court considered whether the claimants were entitled to a higher valuation, taking into account various factors such as the relevant dates for valuation the status and description of the acquired lan India Law Library Docid # 2421020
(20) MADAN PAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. MAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 10-12-2024 Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1957 — Section 507A — Appellant sought partition of agricultural land under Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 (DLR Act), post-urbanization notification under Section 507(a) of the 1957 Act — Effect of urbanization notification on pending DLR Act proceedings — Appellant argued proceedings remain valid; respondent contended they become non est — Court held notifications under Section 507(a) do not retroactively invalidate pre-existing DLR Act proceedings but end India Law Library Docid # 2420663