(121) RAMANDEEP KOUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 17-03-2025 Rehbar-e-Khel Scheme — The eligibility criterion of “hailing from a concerned Physical Education Zone” for the Rehbar-e-Khel scheme does not necessitate actual and physical residence in that zone but rather belonging to that area, and the writ court’s judgment upholding a selection based on this interpretation was legally sound — The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge’s order that had upheld the selection of a candidate as Rehbar-e-Khel — The appellant ar India Law Library Docid # 2423818
(122) KAMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Specific Performance — In a Regular Second Appeal against concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for specific performance, the High Court’s scope for interference is limited — Where both lower courts, upon appreciation of evidence, have arrived at findings regarding execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff India Law Library Docid # 2423943
(123) LACHHMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32(1) — Oral Dying Declaration — Reliability and Admissibility — An oral dying declaration made by the deceased shortly before succumbing to injuries, naming the assailant, can form the basis of conviction if found truthful and reliable — Where deceased was found injured, stated appellant No.1 shot him to his father and nephew, and succumbed shortly thereafter while being shifted, the statement constitutes a valid oral dying declaration — Reliability established when India Law Library Docid # 2423944
(124) M/S. LAVENDER INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. NISHIT BADOLA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Letters Patent Appeal — Ex Parte Order — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Impugned common ex parte order passed by Single Judge in writ petition adversely affecting substantial rights of appellants (directing taking over/sale of properties claimed by them) — Appellants admittedly not parties to the underlying writ petition and not heard before passing the order — Such ex parte orders affecting rights of non-parties are violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable, warranti India Law Library Docid # 2423983
(125) M/S. VALLABH CORPORATION Vs. SMS INDIA PVT. LTD.[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Section 18 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Interplay — Overriding Effect — MSME Act, 2006 is a special law enacted subsequent to the A&C Act, 1996 and its provisions, particularly those in Chapter V (including Section 18), prevail over the general provisions of the A&C Act concerning disputes between MSME suppliers and buyers — Section 18 mandates a specific mechanism of reference to the Facilitation Council, fol India Law Library Docid # 2423984
(126) AHMED RAZA Vs. NITISH JAIN[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope — Unambiguous Admission in Pleadings and by Counsel — Where defendant filed a written statement accompanied by its own statement of accounts clearly acknowledging a specific sum as due and payable to the plaintiff, and subsequently defendant's counsel, in the defendant's presence before the court, explicitly stated that defendant did not wish to file a reply to plaintiff's O-XII R-6 application and conceded that the a India Law Library Docid # 2423985
(127) SUDESH CHHIKARA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 410 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 450 — Power of Chief Judicial/Metropolitan Magistrate — Withdrawal vs. Transfer of Cases — Scope and Nature — The power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) under Section 410 Cr.P.C. / Section 450 BNSS is primarily administrative in nature, enabling withdrawal or recall of cases previously "made over" by the CJM/CMM to a subordinate Magistrate for India Law Library Docid # 2423988
(128) DHARAM SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2) — Bail Appeal — Maintainability of Subsequent Appeal against Same Order — A subsequent or repeat criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, challenging the very same order of the Special Court/Exclusive Special Court which refused bail, is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first appeal preferred against that specific order, irrespective of whether the subs India Law Library Docid # 2424129
(129) M/S GR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 200A(1)(a)(ii) — Processing of TDS Statement — Adjustment for ‘Incorrect Claim’ — Principles of Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Before making an adjustment on account of an “incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement” under S. 200A(1)(a)(ii), the concerned authority is mandatorily required under the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the deductor — Determining whether a claim is incorr India Law Library Docid # 2424162
(130) BHEEMSEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Service Law — Recruitment — Concealment of Criminal Case in Application — Subsequent Acquittal/Exoneration — Effect on Candidature — Application of Mind by Employer — While non-disclosure of a pending criminal case (FIR) in the initial application form constitutes suppression, the subsequent acquittal or exoneration of the candidate before the final decision on candidature warrants a holistic and objective assessment by the employer, rather than mechanical rejection — The rejection of candidatur India Law Library Docid # 2424185
(131) NAVNEET KUMAR UPADHYAY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Service Law — Contractual Appointment — Renewal/Extension — Applicability of Amended Rules — The renewal or extension of a temporary/contractual appointment, subsequent to the expiry of the original or previously extended term, is governed by the service rules and eligibility criteria prevailing on the date such renewal/extension is considered — An amendment to the rules introducing a mandatory eligibility requirement (such as registration with a professional council), effected after the initial India Law Library Docid # 2424189
(132) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SMTI. LALTANPUII PROPRIETOR OF TWO BROTHERS[MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] 13-03-2025 Customs Act, 1962 — Sections 124, 110A and 130 — A government authority that seizes goods and subsequently disposes of them without informing the owner, after a release order has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court, is liable to pay damages to the owner for the loss of those goods — The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Customs authorities, upholding the single judge's order directing them to pay Rs. 60 lakhs to the respondent as the value of seized betel nuts — The Customs had seized the India Law Library Docid # 2423510
(133) ABHISHEK SUREKA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 13-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Cruelty — Dowry Demand as a Key Element — The legislative intent behind the insertion of Section 498A was to prevent the abuse of married women for want of dowry — The term 'cruelty' under this section is often understood in the context of harassment or torture for dowry demands — In the absence of any allegation of demand for dowry, quarrels between husband and wife or the demand for divorce by the husband or his relatives may not automatically amount to India Law Library Docid # 2423429
(134) SHRI THOUDAM RAGHUMANI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 13-03-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Die-in-Harness Scheme — The court applied the principle of res judicata and found the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim unsustainable due to a factually incorrect finding regarding the submission of a timely application — A writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme — The court found that one ground for rejection was already decided in a previous writ petition and thus barred by res jud India Law Library Docid # 2423522
(135) MOHD. SHAFI Vs. UT OF J&K THROUGH SHO[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 410 — Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), Section 302 — In a case based on circumstantial evidence, especially for murder by poison, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that unequivocally points to the accused’s guilt and excludes all other reasonable hypotheses — Proof of disclosure statements leading to recoveries must be reliable — The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction for murder by admin India Law Library Docid # 2423774
(136) S. CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Judicial authority must refer parties to arbitration if an arbitration agreement exists and a party applies for it no later than submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute — A preliminary objection regarding arbitration in a written statement constitutes such an application, but a nominated arbitrator should be independent and not an official of a party — The High Court disposed of an appeal by modifying the trial court’s India Law Library Docid # 2423775
(137) VIJAY LAKSHMI AND OTHERS Vs. VED PARKASH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 — While Order 8 Rule 9 for subsequent pleadings like a replica to address new pleas in a written statement, the trial court has the discretion to allow or refuse such filings, and the rejection is not necessarily prejudicial if the party can still present evidence on the new issues — The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s rejection of the petitioners’ application to file a replica under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC India Law Library Docid # 2423776
(138) SMT. SUDERSHAN SHARMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Service Law — Pension — Recovery of excess pension paid due to departmental error should not be made from vulnerable pensioners, particularly without notice and after considerable delay, where the pensioner is not at fault, as it would be iniquitous and harsh, outweighing the employer’s right to recover — The High Court allowed an appeal, quashing the recovery of excess pension from an elderly widow and renal patient — The court found the overpayment resulted from departmental negligence, no not India Law Library Docid # 2423819
(139) COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SHARADUL AMARCHAND MANGALDASS & CO. THROUGH ITS PARTNER RITU BHALLA[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2 (c) — A bonafide interpretation of a court judgment in a legal notice, even if it differs from the court’s intended meaning, does not constitute criminal contempt of court unless the interpretation is wilful, deliberate, or obstructs the course of justice, especially when no judicial proceedings are pending — The High Court dismissed a criminal contempt petition initiated suo moto against a law firm for allegedly misinterpreting a previous court judgment India Law Library Docid # 2423820
(140) SMT MANJEET BHALLA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 13-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O. 47 R. 1 — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of Record — An "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying review exists where a judgment in appeal overlooks a fundamental, undisputed fact rendering the original proceeding invalid (such as the suit being filed against a dead person) and fails to provide reasons for overturning the lower court's reasoned order. India Law Library Docid # 2424130