ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(161) T. FAKRUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE DIST COLLECTOR, KURNOOL AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-11-2024
WP.No.29317 of 2011 is filed by the workers of Yemmigannur Spinning Mills, Kurnool District, seeking a direction to the official respondents to protect the properties of Yemmigannur Spinning Mills until the recovery of money due to the workers totalling Rs.81,43,200/- is recovered. The inaction on the part of the official respondents in not taking any action to recover amounts due from Yemmigannur Spinning Mills is also challenged.
India Law Library Docid # 2420899

(162) ASHOK GANGADHAR PURANIK AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 26-11-2024
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 19 — State's demand for a refund of advance compensation paid to the landowners unjustified because the land was not under the possession of a Court Receiver when it was acquired — The court found that the state had taken possession of the land, paid advance compensation, and made mutation entries to assert its ownership, thus it cou
India Law Library Docid # 2420997

(163) SIKANDAR SOMSINGH CHAVHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 26-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(1) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 3, 4, 5(k) and 6 — Rape of Minor — The appeal challenges this judgment, primarily arguing that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under 18 at the time of the alleged incident and that the evidence supporting the occurrence of the rape was insufficient — The court considered evidence regarding the victim's birth date, witness testimonies, and the l
India Law Library Docid # 2421026

(164) M/S JMC TAHER ALI JOINT VENTURE THROUGH KANHIYA LAL SUTHAR Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-11-2024
M P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Section 19 — The dispute arose from a contract regarding the completion and payment for a water pumping project — The petitioner claimed additional payment for price escalation, which was deducted by the respondent — The main issue was whether the petitioner's claim was time-barred under the Adhiniyam, 1983 — The petitioner argued that the decision by the Dispute Board was not final and that the limitation period should be considered from the date of
India Law Library Docid # 2420122

(165) TEEJA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Railways Act, 1989 — Section 123(c)(2) and 124A — Bonafide passenger — The deceased fell from a train due to heavy rush and jerk, resulting in fatal injuries — Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger — Whether the incident falls under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act — The claimants argued that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident as per the Railways Act — The Railways contested, claiming no untoward incident occurred a
India Law Library Docid # 2420239

(166) AMARPAL SINGH TIWANA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420 and 120-B — Quashing of the FIR based on a compromise with the aggrieved persons — Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed based on the compromise — The petitioners argued that the matter had been amicably settled, and the aggrieved persons had no objection to quashing the FIR — The State opposed the compromise, arguing that the offences involved were serious — The court considered the genuineness of the compromise, the lack of coer
India Law Library Docid # 2420240

(167) MAHESH KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 417, 498-A and 120-B — The petitioners sought anticipatory bail — The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail — The petitioners argued for anticipatory bail, referencing several Supreme Court rulings to support their case — The State counsel informed the court that the petitioners had joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation was not required — The court, considering the State counsel's statement, made
India Law Library Docid # 2420241

(168) ANIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306, 498-A and 34 — The petitioner is seeking regular bail — The FIR was filed based on a complaint by the victim's father, alleging dowry demands and harassment leading to the victim's suicide — Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented — The petitioner argues that the victim's death was due to drowning, as shown in CCTV footage, and there is no direct evidence linking him to the abetment
India Law Library Docid # 2420242

(169) SHASHI AND OTHERS Vs. RUPINDER DHIMAN AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Motor Accident Claims — The case involves a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of ‘W’ — The claimants sought compensation — The main issues were whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving and the appropriate amount of compensation — The claimants argued that the deceased was on the correct side of the road and the car driver was at fault — They sought higher compensation — The Insurance Company contended contributory negligence, arguing the motorcycle was on the wrong
India Law Library Docid # 2420243

(170) AMARDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Bail — The main issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail, considering the lack of progress in the trial and the evidence presented — The petitioner claims false implication, citing that key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and there is no substantial evidence like call records or CCTV footage linking him to the crime — The State opposes bail, arguing that the petitioner played an active role in the murder and used his
India Law Library Docid # 2420244

(171) SUKHDEV SINGH @ SUKH SHAH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — 307, 324, 323, 326, 148, 149 and 120B — Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 — The petitioner is accused in an FIR involving charges under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act — The incident involved an alleged attack by the petitioner and co-accused — The main issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail — The petitioner argues for bail, citing no prior criminal record and claiming that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injust
India Law Library Docid # 2420245

(172) SITA RAM Vs. LALITA RANI AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance — The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 18,000 per month to his wife and their children — The main issue was whether the Family Court's decision on maintenance was justified, considering the petitioner's financial situation and previous agreements between the parties — Petitioner argued that the Family Court ignored his financial difficulties and a prior settlement where he agreed to transfer prope
India Law Library Docid # 2420246

(173) GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S NARMADA MEDICAL AGENCY AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Courier Services — Cash on Delivery — The case involves a dispute over the non-collection of payment for medicines worth Rs. 1,02,869/- delivered by Petitioner to Respondent No.1 on a Cash on Delivery (COD) basis — Whether the Petitioner, as a carrier, is liable for the payment due from Respondent No.1, and whether the suit was correctly filed against a Proprietorship Firm — The Petitioner argued that they were only responsible for delivering the goods and not for the payment collection — They a
India Law Library Docid # 2420319

(174) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS Vs. TEJVEER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Delhi Police Examination 2023 — Post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female — Respondent was declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police due to an abnormal chest X-ray — The Review Medical Examination Board confirmed this unfitness, but respondent obtained a contrary opinion from Safdarjung Hospital — Whether the Tribunal's order for a fresh medical examination of respondent was justified — The Review Medical Examination Board's decision was based on scie
India Law Library Docid # 2420320

(175) ARUN KHANNA Vs. RENU SHARMA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Recovery suit for an amount of Rs. 1,37,500/- plus interest — The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC — Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the suit was barred by limitation — The appellant argued that the respondent filed a false case under Section 138, which was decided in his favor — He sought recovery of the amount paid during those proceedings — The respondent cont
India Law Library Docid # 2420321

(176) SANJEEV SEHGAL AND ANOTHER Vs. PURNIMA BHATIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — The appellants sought possession of a property, arrears of rent, and mesne profits — The property was leased to respondents 1 & 2, but was also mortgaged to respondent 3-bank, which was not disclosed in the initial suit — The main issue was whether the suit for possession was maintainable given the ongoing proceedings under the SARFAESI Act — The appellants argued for possession of the property
India Law Library Docid # 2420322

(177) KESHAV DEV Vs. KAMLESH AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Maintenance — The petitioner challenges a Family Court judgment directing him to pay maintenance ‘K’ — He claims he was never married to ‘K’ — The main issue is whether a valid marital relationship existed between the petitioner and ‘K’, which would obligate him to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC — Petitioner argues that there was no marriage, and ‘K’ was only kept to care for his mother — He acknowledges cohabitation but denies
India Law Library Docid # 2420323

(178) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DHIRENDER GAUTAM AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Motor Accident Claims — The case involves an appeal by Reliance General Insurance against a compensation award of Rs. 62,70,484 with 9% interest to ‘D’, who suffered 62.40% permanent disability from a road accident in 2013 — The insurance company challenged the assessed income of Rs. 25,000/month for the claimant, the functional disability percentage, the future prospects percentage, and the interest rate — The claimant argued that despite being a first-year MBBS student, his disability severely
India Law Library Docid # 2420324

(179) K.M. MUTHUSAMY AND OTHERS Vs. GOKUL RAGHUKUMAR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 8 — Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 — Section 37(2) — The case involves a dispute over joint family properties — The properties were initially partitioned in 1994, but the suit properties were kept in common — The main issues are whether the suit properties are joint family properties or separate properties of ‘M’, and the validity of a will allegedly executed by ‘M’ — The plaintiffs argue that the suit properties are joint family propertie
India Law Library Docid # 2420385

(180) SALON THAUSEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 323 — Murder — The appellant was convicted for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased with a sharp weapon in 2009 — The conviction was based on the testimony of the informant (PW4) and other witnesses — The main issue was whether the evidence presented, particularly the inconsistent descriptions of the weapon used, was sufficient to uphold the conviction — The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence, especially the testimony of PW4, was in
India Law Library Docid # 2420441