(161) TANVEER AHMAD KHAN Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 17-03-2025 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 and 21 — Grounds of detention under preventive detention laws must be clear, specific, and provide sufficient particulars to enable the detenue to make an effective representation against the detention order — Vague grounds that lack essential details vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and render the detention illegal — The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed a det India Law Library Docid # 2423788
(162) AIJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. U.T. OF J&K & ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 17-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(5) — Unexplained delay in executing a preventive detention order throws doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, and non-supply of essential material relied upon for detention hinders the detenue’s right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention unsustainable — The High Court allowed a petition and quashed a detention order due to an unexplained delay of over nine months in its execution and the non India Law Library Docid # 2423789
(163) CHET RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. MATI RAM @ MOTI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rule 4(2) — Legal representatives of a deceased defendant, already represented by a written statement, need to satisfy the court about the nature of any additional defence they seek to raise in an independent written statement under Order 22 Rule 4(2) — Petition challenging the dismissal of an application by legal representatives of a deceased defendant for filing an independent written statement was dismissed — The court held that while Order 22 Rule 4(2) a India Law Library Docid # 2423806
(164) AJAY CHAUDHARY Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Application for compassionate appointment should be considered based on the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death — Writ petition was allowed, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization from the date of initial contractual appointment — The court directed the respondent corporation to regularize the petitioner with consequential benefits, holding that the case should have been considered under the compassionat India Law Library Docid # 2423807
(165) 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
(166) 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
(167) 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
(168) 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
(169) 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
(170) 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
(171) 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
(172) 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
(173) 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
(174) 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
(175) 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
(176) NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. SHREE ELECTRICALS & ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Applicability to Section 34 Applications — The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting proceedings bona fide in a court lacking jurisdiction or similar cause, are applicable to applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA) for setting aside an arbitral award — Section 43 of the ACA makes the Li India Law Library Docid # 2424282
(177) CHOKHENDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MAINTENANCE OF SR. CITIZEN TRIBUNAL, CHANDRAPUR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 17-03-2025 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Section 16(1) — Right to Appeal — Availability to Children/Relatives — Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, although literally restricting the right to appeal against an order of the Maintenance Tribunal to only the senior citizen or parent, must be interpreted purposively and by applying the principle of casus omissus (accidental omission) — Considering the potential involvement India Law Library Docid # 2424301
(178) PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 17-03-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 19 — Sanction for Prosecution — Mandatory Requirement — Bar on Cognizance — Section 19(1) imposes an absolute and unambiguous bar on any court taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority specified in clauses (a) to (c) — The grant of sanction is a pre-condition for the court to acquire competence/jurisdiction to tak India Law Library Docid # 2424307
(179) SRI. M RAME GOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 — Rule 18 — Joining Time for Direct Recruits — Extension and Consequence of Non-joining — Rule 18(1) prescribes a joining period of fifteen days for directly recruited candidates — Rule 18(2) empowers the appointing authority to grant further time for joining upon satisfaction of good and sufficient reasons, by an order in writing — This extension under Rule 18(2) saves the appointment, which would otherwise lapse under Rule 18(3) if the India Law Library Docid # 2424353
(180) MR. VIVEK R NAIR AND ANOTHER Vs. TATA ELXSI LIMITED AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e), 19, 20 — Place/Venue of Arbitration — Party Autonomy — Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause — Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, parties are free to agree on the place (seat/venue) of arbitration (Section 20(1)) — Once the seat/venue is designated in the arbitration agreement (Bengaluru to the exclusion of all other courts), it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of that place for regulating the arbitral proceedings, aki India Law Library Docid # 2424357