ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(101) SHIV NAND Vs. LEELA DEVI AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 26 Rule 9 — H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 — A plaintiff alleging encroachment should typically seek demarcation of the land through the Revenue Act before filing a suit for possession and cannot use an application for a Local Commissioner to collect evidence that could have been obtained earlier — Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner in an encroachment suit was dismissed, as the petitioner had not sought dem
India Law Library Docid # 2423803

(102) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. GIAN KAUR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 — Sections 13-B, 18-A(2) & Schedule II — Leave to Contest — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Application for leave to contest eviction petition filed by NRI landlord under S.13-B must be filed within 15 days of service as per S.18-A(2) read with Schedule II — Rent Controller, being a creature of statute, has no inherent power and no specific power is conferred by the Act to condone delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 — Application filed b
India Law Library Docid # 2423951

(103) GURDEV SINGH Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 19(b) — Subsequent Purchaser — Bonafide Purchase Without Notice — Burden of Proof — Held, in a suit for specific performance, the burden lies heavily upon the subsequent purchaser to plead and prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, having paid money in good faith without notice of the prior agreement to sell — Mere assertion of purchase from a different village is insufficient; failure to discharge this burden renders the subsequent
India Law Library Docid # 2423952

(104) BHAWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018 (Haryana Act No. 26 of 2022) — Constitutionality — Retrospective Operation — Vested Rights — Held, the Amendment Act of 2022, which retrospectively amends the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (Act No. 1 of 2011) w.e.f. 9.6.2011, so as to exclude lands owned by or vested in Panchayats, Municipalities, Government Departments, Boards
India Law Library Docid # 2423953

(105) SANDEEP SINGH Vs. GURBINDER SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Right Against Self-Incrimination — ‘Person Accused of an Offence’ — Pre-Summoning Stage in Complaint Case — Held, the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) is available only to a person formally “accused of an offence” — This status is typically acquired when an FIR is lodged naming the person, a complaint naming the person is filed before a Magistrate followed by issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., or formal accusation other
India Law Library Docid # 2423954

(106) U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KASIM AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Negligence — Head-on Collision — Determination of Liability — Eyewitness Testimony vs. Driver's Defence — In determining negligence in a motor accident claim arising from a head-on collision between a car and a bus, the consistent and credible testimony of injured eyewitnesses travelling in the car, stating that the bus came from the opposite direction at high speed, on the wrong side, and without blowing horn, is sufficient to establish the sole negligence of the bus
India Law Library Docid # 2423975

(107) KAVITA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2), 124A — “Untoward Incident” — Accidental Falling from Train — Interpretation of Evidence — Where a person is found dead near railway tracks with the body severely mutilated and parts scattered, such condition is strongly indicative of the deceased having accidentally fallen from a running train and subsequently being run over, thereby constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of
India Law Library Docid # 2423977

(108) APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Copyright Act, 1957 — Sections 2(d), 2(f), 17 — Ownership of Copyright — Cinematograph Film (Web Series) — Infringement — The plaintiff, being the producer of the web series ‘UNDEKHI’, qualifies as the author and first owner of the copyright in the said work, which constitutes a “cinematograph film” under Section 2(f) read with Sections 2(d) and 17 of the Copyright Act — The unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, streaming, and making available for download of the plaintiff’s we
India Law Library Docid # 2423980

(109) EDELSEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMTIED Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Sections 5, 13(2), 14 — Assignment of Debt — Validity of Prior Notice for Assignee's Action — An Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) or other entity acquiring financial assets, including debt and underlying security interests, through an assignment agreement under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, effectively steps into the shoes of the original lender (assignor) — Such an assignee i
India Law Library Docid # 2424125

(110) HARDEEP SINGH Vs. MAYORSINGH @ NEYAR SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — “Sufficient Cause” — Counsel's Negligence and Litigant's Duty of Vigilance — The discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, while to be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice, requires the applicant to demonstrate “sufficient cause” — Attributing delay solely to the alleged negligence or failure of counsel to communicate case updates is not, per se, sufficient cause, especially when the litigant fails t
India Law Library Docid # 2424126

(111) SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER AND OTHERS Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 147, 148, 148A, 151A — e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 (Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022) — Jurisdiction to Issue Notice under Section 148 — Faceless Assessment Regime — Automated Allocation — The Scheme framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Notification dated 29.03.2022, issued in exercise of powers under Section 151A of the Act, mandatorily requires that the issuance of notice under Section 148 for assessment, r
India Law Library Docid # 2424178

(112) PRIYANKA MODI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 154, 162, 173, 482 — Constitution of India, Art. 226 — Multiple FIRs — Same Transaction/Offence — Second FIR — In respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, only the earliest information reported under S. 154 CrPC satisfies the requirements of that section and constitutes the First Information Report — Subsequent information received after the commencement of investigation, whether relating to
India Law Library Docid # 2424214

(113) UMAKANT SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Service Law — Recruitment — Reserve List/Waiting List — Validity Period — Lapsing — Effect of Delay and Subsequent Recruitments — A claim for appointment based on inclusion in a reserve list from a recruitment process becomes untenable due to delay and the lapsing of the list’s validity — Where government circulars stipulate a limited operational period for reserve lists (six months from issuance), a petition filed years after the expiry of this period, and after subsequent recruitment processes
India Law Library Docid # 2424209

(114) MULTIMETALS LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 148A — Procedure Before Issuing Notice u/s 148 — Mandatory Compliance — Natural Justice — The procedure stipulated under S. 148A, including conducting inquiry (if required, with prior approval), providing relied-upon information/material to the assessee, granting an opportunity of being heard, considering the reply, and passing a reasoned order with prior approval, is mandatory — Failure to adhere to these safeguards, particularly non-supply of relied-upon material
India Law Library Docid # 2424212

(115) AJAY S. KATHURIA Vs. JAYESH KUMAR & CO.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 1 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015) — Filing of Written Statement — Time Limit — In a Commercial Suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the written statement must be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons — This period can be extended by the Court, for reasons recorded and on payment of costs, but not beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons — A written statement presented wi
India Law Library Docid # 2424284

(116) MAHADEO AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 34 — Vicarious Liability of Directors — Pleading Requirement — For initiating prosecution against Directors (including Managing Director) of a company for an offence committed by the company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the complaint must contain specific and clear averments that such Directors were in charge of, and responsible to the company for, the conduct of its business at the time the alleged offence was committed In the absence of such
India Law Library Docid # 2424309

(117) MAHEBOOBKHA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 — Section 19, Rule 7 — Surrender of Tenancy — Validity — Mandatory Procedure — A protected tenant’s mere refusal to take possession of the tenanted land, even if stated in an affidavit, does not constitute a valid surrender of tenancy rights under Section 19 of the Act A valid surrender requires adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed, including being in writing, verification before the Tahsildar regarding its voluntary nature and
India Law Library Docid # 2424314

(118) THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND OTHERS Vs. SAU. SAROJ AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 — Scope of Review — Error Apparent — Patent Illegality — The power of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed It is permissible only where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, necessitating correction due to substantial and compelling circumstances — Review cannot serve as an appeal in disguise for rehearing arguments already addressed, nor can it correct an erroneous decisi
India Law Library Docid # 2424315

(119) BASHARAT HUSSAIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 18-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 341, 323, 504 , 147 and 188 — Non-consideration of bail orders granted to a detenu in the FIRs that form the basis of a preventive detention order demonstrates non-application of mind by the detaining authority and renders the detention order unsustainable in law — The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act — The court found that the detaining authority failed to consider the fact t
India Law Library Docid # 2423817

(120) BHUPINDER SINGH MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-03-2025
Service Law — Contractual employees — Contractual employees engaged by government-funded societies performing governmental functions for an extended period are entitled to consideration for regularization on par with other state government contractual employees, and denial of such can be discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Writ petition by contractual computer operators engaged through a government society (CAMPA) for over two decades performing governmental fu
India Law Library Docid # 2423804