ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(101) MADHAB KUMAR SAHA Vs. TARUN KUMAR SAHA AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will was contested by sons and daughter, leading to a probate application — The propounder argued that the Will was executed according to law, while the respondents claimed suspicious circumstances — Whether the Will was validly executed and free from fraud, coercion, or undue influence — The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence of the attesting witnesses satisfied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and there wer
India Law Library Docid # 2420584

(102) ROMIT RAY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 407, 468, 471, 506 and 120B — Fraudulent activities related to a hire purchase vehicle — Whether the criminal proceedings should continue given the civil nature of the dispute and the presence of an arbitration clause in the hire purchase agreement — Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations did not constitute criminal offenses and that initiating criminal proceedings was an abuse of process — The court noted the lack of concrete evidence to s
India Law Library Docid # 2420585

(103) PATURU VENKATA SESHAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. PATURU KONDAIAH DIED AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
Appeal Suit No.2110 of 2002 is filed against the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.116 of 1977 in O.S.No.89 of 1947 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.89 of 1947. The suit in O.S.No.89 of 1947 is filed for the relief of partition of item No.1 of plaint-A schedule property. Transfer Appeal Suit No.903 of 2008 is filed against the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.569 of 1977 in O.S.No.157 of 1946 on th
India Law Library Docid # 2420901

(104) SHAIK APSANA BEGUM Vs. SHAIK MOHAMMED ALI[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District, and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Annamayya District.
India Law Library Docid # 2420904

(105) KATTEM NAGAMANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2420906

(106) SRI VILAS VIGRAH DASA AND OTHERS Vs. BALLA YEDUKONDALU AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
Sri Bhogeswara Swamy Temple, Kolanukonda Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, is the owner of Ac.6.53 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.51-1B of Kolanukonda Village. This land, which was earlier under cultivation by the tenants, had been leased out to the 4th respondent in the writ petition, on long lease basis, for a period of 33 years by way of G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 26.11.2021, subsequently, amended by G.O.Ms.No.359, dated 15.12.2021. Initially, the tenants in the land, had moved W.P.N
India Law Library Docid # 2420907

(107) STATE AND OTHERS Vs. BALVEER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this leave to appeal may kindly be granted and appeal may kindly be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.04.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents may kindly be convicted and sentenced as per the provision of law.”
India Law Library Docid # 2420921

(108) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT REVANSIDHA MATHAPATI[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 29-11-2024
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 and Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) — Whether the acquittal of the accused was justified — The prosecution argued that the Accused, a Junior Engineer with MSEB, demanded and accepted a bribe from the Complainant for providing an electricity connection — The trial court, however, found that the prosecution's case was contradictory, as the Complainant admitted in cross-examination that he had forcibly placed the money in the accused's pocket,
India Law Library Docid # 2421018

(109) VISHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 29-11-2024
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A — Promote hatred and enmity between communities about Caste Reservation System — Whether the order to discharge respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for offences under the Act, 1989 was correct — The appellant argued that the WhatsApp messages sent by Respondent No. 2 were sufficient to show that she attempted to promote hatred and enmity between communities, thus constituting an offence — The court, however, found t
India Law Library Docid # 2421024

(110) RAJIV @ MONU Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 34 — Murder — The appeal challenges the conviction, arguing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence proving appellant’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt — The defense highlighted contradictions in witness statements, the absence of appellant’s name in initial reports, and questioned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence — The prosecution maintained that witnesses identified appellant at the crime scene and that the evidence
India Law Library Docid # 2420309

(111) MR SANJAY JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. MS RENU SOBTI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(a),14(1)(e) and 14(1)(h) read with 25(B) — Eviction — The case involves a dispute over an eviction petition filed against the tenants — The legal heirs sought to continue the eviction proceedings after death — The main issues are the abatement of the eviction petition due to the delay in substituting legal heirs and the legality of the orders allowing the substitution and condoning the delay — The petitioners argued
India Law Library Docid # 2420310

(112) SMT. ROSHNI AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI VIKAS AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 50 — The case involves a dispute over the possession of a shop — The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original allottee, claim ownership, while the defendants assert they purchased the property through various documents — The main issues include the validity of the defendants' claim to ownership based on documents like GPA and Sale Agreement, jurisdiction of the Trial Court under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and non-joinder of necessary parties — The defendant
India Law Library Docid # 2420311

(113) BASF SE Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Patents Act, 1970 — Section 16 — Appellant filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs for refusing to grant a patent for their Divisional Application, which was filed on the same day as the original patent was granted — Whether the Divisional Application was valid despite being filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and whether the refusal violated principles of natural justice — The appellant argued that it was impossible to know the exact timing of the pa
India Law Library Docid # 2420329

(114) THIRUNAVUKKARASU AND OTHERS Vs. GOWRI (DIED) AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 15 — The case involves a dispute over a property originally owned by ‘S’ — The plaintiff, claiming to be her sole legal heir, sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, who claimed ownership through adverse possession — The main issue was whether the plaintiff had established his title and possession over the property and whether the defendants' claim of adverse possession was valid — The plaintiff argued that he inherited the property from ‘S’ and
India Law Library Docid # 2420330

(115) MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 28-11-2024
Service Law — Misconduct and Harassment — The petitioner challenged an ICC report and a complaint filed against him by a colleague, alleging misconduct and harassment — The main issue was whether the ICC could take cognizance of a complaint filed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of the incident — The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed late and that he was acquitted of similar charges in a previous trial — The respondents contended that the ICC's actions were
India Law Library Docid # 2420491

(116) JOHN MOSES D @ MADAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 417, 120B and 34 — Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 — Section 3 — Forgery and cheating — The main issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail, considering the allegations and the procedural compliance regarding his arrest — The petitioner argues that the grounds of arrest were not served immediately, violating his rights under Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution — The respondent contends that
India Law Library Docid # 2420518

(117) JOHN MOSES D @ MADAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 19 and 45 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 41 and 50 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 — The main issue is whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to not being informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution — The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, citing several Supreme Court judg
India Law Library Docid # 2420540

(118) SATYENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 406 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — The complaint lacks address and details of petitioner’s alleged involvement — Whether the criminal proceedings against petitioners are justified given the lack of evidence linking him to the alleged offenses and the procedural irregularities in the complaint — Petitioner argues he is not an officer of the accused company and was not involved in the transactions; the complaint is defective for omitting his address
India Law Library Docid # 2420586

(119) G. BHAGAVAT SINGH Vs. THE GOVT OF A P AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
This Second Appeal was filed by the Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2002 passed in A.S.No. 6 of 1997 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') partly reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 23.11.1996 passed in O.S. No. 17 of 1991 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali (for short ‘the trial Court’).
India Law Library Docid # 2420891

(120) S. JAHANGEER ALI @ JAHANGEER VALLI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF AP[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 28-11-2024
All the three accused in Sessions Case No.308 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. During the pendency of the present Criminal Appeal, 2nd appellant/A2 died on 01.09.2022 in Central Prison, Kadapa. Hence, the Criminal Appeal against 2nd appellant/A2 stands abated.
India Law Library Docid # 2420902