(161) PATEL VINODRAY LALJI BUTANI Vs. UJIBEN LAVJI-DECD. AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 23-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — A Second Appeal is only maintainable if it involves a substantial question of law — A substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law or binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case concerning the rights of the parties — Mere application of decided law or appreciation of India Law Library Docid # 2437667
(162) MAGANBHAI MAVJIBHAI PATEL Vs. TALSHIBHAI LAXMANBHAI VIRADIYA AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 23-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Maintainability — "Decree" vs. "Order" — An order passed by the District Judge permitting the unconditional withdrawal of a Miscellaneous Civil Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring a Regular Civil Appeal is an 'Order' within the meaning of Section 2(14) of CPC, and not a 'Decree' as India Law Library Docid # 2437668
(163) RAMESHBHAI BHIMABHAI KACHIYA PATEL EXPIRED AND ANOTHER Vs. DIPNESH UDESINH MUJPURA AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 23-12-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140 (No Fault Liability) — Interim Compensation — Scope of inquiry — The Tribunal's inquiry while deciding an application for interim compensation under Section 140 is limited to three aspects: (I) Accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle; (II) Accident resulting in permanent disablement or death; and (III) Claim made against the owner and insurer of the involved India Law Library Docid # 2437669
(164) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANABHAI DAYABHAI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 23-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Liability of State for Death Caused by Wild Animal — Tortious Liability — Compensation claimed under Law of Torts for death caused by a leopard attacking deceased while grazing cattle in forest area — Trial Court and Appellate Court found negligence by State (Defendants) and awarded compensation — Substantial Question of Law framed regarding State's liability under statute, common law of Torts, or strict/absolute liability — Held, India Law Library Docid # 2437670
(165) STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Vs. RAKESH SEHRAWAT AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378(4) and 378(1) — Leave to Appeal/Appeal against Acquittal — Scope of Appellate Court Intervention — Acquittal based on doubt regarding accused identity and inconsistencies in prosecution case — When Trial Court correctly appreciates discrepancies (such as non-examination of material witnesses like PCR officials, delayed FIR, non-awareness of assailants' identity by Complainant and PW, contradictory stands on arrest memos/paperwork, and suspicious India Law Library Docid # 2437258
(166) VIJAY VERMA Vs. INDIRA WARMAN AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Discretionary Power of Court to Transpose Parties — Scope and Amplitude — Order 1 Rule 10(2) confers wide discretionary power on the Court to add, strike out, or transpose parties at any stage of the proceedings, either suo motu or upon application, when necessary for the "effective and complete adjudication" of all questions involved in the suit — This power is the primary source India Law Library Docid # 2437259
(167) HARISH MITTAL Vs. KISHAN GOPAL RATHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 (Setting aside ex parte decree) — Order V Rule 20 (Substituted service) — Service of Summons — Incorrect addresses in Suit Plaint — An ex parte decree may be set aside where the appellant/defendant provides a plausible and sufficient explanation for non-appearance, particularly when the addresses provided by the plaintiff in the suit plaint for effecting service were incorrect or fictitious, leading to India Law Library Docid # 2437260
(168) BANMALI KUMAR (DIED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. VASUDEO AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 57(2), Section 257(f) — Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction — Challenge to Revenue Authority Orders — Suit for declaration that orders of Board of Revenue (under Section 57(2) proceedings) are null and void — Exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 257(f) is not absolute — Civil Court's jurisdiction is not excluded where statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial India Law Library Docid # 2437418
(169) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HIMATLAL NATHULAL BHRAHMAN (BAVADFAD) AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of Appellate Court interference — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 498-A (Cruelty by husband or relatives) — Where the Trial Court's finding of acquittal is reasonable and plausible, and not perverse, the Appellate Court should not disturb the acquittal order, even if a different view might have been India Law Library Docid # 2437671
(170) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ZANZIBEN RAJUBHAI BANDHIYA[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of Appellate Court’s power — Acquittal judgment by trial court for offence under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (The Act) — Appellate court must give proper weight to the view of the trial court, the presumption of innocence, and the right of the accused to the benefit of any reasonable doubt — Interference is warranted only if the India Law Library Docid # 2437745
(171) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KARSANBHAI LAGDHIRBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 17(c), 29, 42(2), 50(6) — Appeal against acquittal — Illegal possession of opium — Compliance with mandatory provisions for search and seizure — Failure to comply with Section 42(2) and Section 50(6) of the NDPS Act — Prosecution failed to prove that the mandatory intimation to the immediate official superior was properly sent, as neither the India Law Library Docid # 2437746
(172) SHIVSINH GANPATSINH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 372 Proviso; Section 378(4) — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Section 138 — Appeal against Acquittal — Right of Complainant/Victim — The Complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "Victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, as established by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804). India Law Library Docid # 2437747
(173) LR OF BALVANTBHAI NATVARLAL PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. ARUNABEN NATVARLAL PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — First Appeal — Ex parte Decree — Setting aside of — Suit for Partition — Conduct of Appellant/Defendant — Failure to cross-examine plaintiff and lead evidence despite knowledge and opportunity — When suit instituted in 1994, preliminary decree passed in 2019, and final decree in 2024 — Party served with examination-in-chief, represented by counsel, and participated till a India Law Library Docid # 2437748
(174) ASHIMA SOOD Vs. TARUN JAIN[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-12-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13B — Dissolution of Marriage — Conversion of Contested Divorce to Mutual Consent Divorce in Appeal — Parties, whose marriage was dissolved by an ex-parte decree under Section 13(1)(ia) on grounds of cruelty/breakdown, reached a Permanent Settlement Agreement & Memorandum of Understanding during the appeal — Agreement provided for dissolution of marriage by India Law Library Docid # 2437749
(175) NADEEM S/O JAHIR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-12-2025 Criminal Procedure — Application for Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage — Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Sections 348 and 432 (Corresponding to Cr.P.C., 1973, Sections 311 and 391) — Power of Appellate Court to summon witness or take further evidence — State moved application in a criminal appeal arising from POCSO conviction, seeking to re-examine the victim (PW-20) India Law Library Docid # 2438002
(176) RAMJEE PRASAD KAMKAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 19-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 366A (Procuration of minor girl), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), and 376 (Rape) — Appeal against conviction — Appreciation of Evidence — Minor Victim — Age of victim: Medical evidence was inconclusive regarding the exact age of the victim, merely suggesting it was around 17 years and stating that third molar eruption range (17–25 years) made precise age determination difficult. India Law Library Docid # 2437159
(177) SULEMAN BARBHAIYA LAKHIMPUR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-12-2025 Criminal Law — Murder (Section 302 IPC) — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Burden of Proof (Section 106 Evidence Act) — The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife; no direct eye witnesses existed — Evidence indicated the appellant and deceased were last seen together, and the appellant admitted being with her when she India Law Library Docid # 2437230
(178) PANKAJ DIXIT Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-12-2025 Service Law — Promotion — Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) — Below benchmark grading — Communication of ACR entries — The petitioner, an Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Border Roads Engineering Service (General Reserve Engineering Force), was denied promotion in 2010-11 due to "average" (below benchmark) ACR gradings for 2005-06 and 2006-07 — Petitioner contended that these gradings, being a downgrading compared to other years, should have been India Law Library Docid # 2437231
(179) SRI CHIRANJEEB DAS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-12-2025 Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (Rules of 1964) — Rule 9 — Disciplinary Proceedings — De Novo Enquiry — Powers of Disciplinary Authority — Absence of specific provision in Rules of 1964 for initiating de novo/fresh enquiry merely because Disciplinary Authority disagrees with Enquiry Officer's finding in favour of delinquent officer is established law — However, de novo enquiry is permissible to rectify serious defects or lapses in procedure (e.g., failure to furnish India Law Library Docid # 2437232
(180) SMT. NISHA DEVLIYA Vs. SMT. NANDINI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 19-12-2025 M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 — Section 441-F(2), 441, 441-B, 441-D, 441-H — Setting aside election of Councillor — Disqualification for non-disclosure/false information in nomination affidavit — Scope of judicial review in Civil Revision — Trial court erred in setting aside the election based on assumptions (surmises and conjectures) about potential tax arrears if municipal records were updated, rather than on proof of existing arrears or substantial non-compliance with India Law Library Docid # 2437148