(201) SMT. NALLURI PADMA Vs. VEERISETTY KRISHNA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 13 – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Failure to file written statement within 90 days – Supreme Court judgment in Salem Advocate Bar Association case allows extension of time for filing written statement as a directory provision in the interest of justice – Dismissal of application solely on technical India Law Library Docid # 2428079
(202) ARUN FATEHPURIA AND OTHERS Vs. TARACHAND THOLIA HUF[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 9 — Eviction — Sub-letting and bona fide necessity — Application for eviction filed by landlord against tenants on grounds of tenant sub-letting premises and landlord’s bona fide personal need — Issue of sub-letting decided against landlord, issue of personal bona fide need decided in his favour by both Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal — Petitioners argued tenancy created in favor India Law Library Docid # 2428040
(203) HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947— Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Indian Penal Code— Section 161 — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Appeal against conviction — Conviction upheld as demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence, including corroboration from other India Law Library Docid # 2428041
(204) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference by appellate court is limited — Reversal of acquittal only if Trial Court’s judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact — Mere possibility of a contrary view does not justify reversal if Trial Court’s view is legally plausible. India Law Library Docid # 2428042
(205) M/S. JABS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act), Section 1(3) & 32(1) — Notification — Land Acquisition — Notifications issued for industrial development and acquisition of land for industrial purposes — Land vested in State free from encumbrances — Handed over to MIDC for development — Industrial area developed, plots allotted — Forest Department claiming land as "Forest Land" based on notice under India Law Library Docid # 2428213
(206) EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Pre-Institution Mediation — Revocation of Dispensation — Plaintiff’s claim of learning about the impugned product in February 2025, with a continuing cause of action — Defendant sought revocation of dispensation order by alleging plaintiff had prior knowledge due to public disclosures (regulatory authorities, annual reports) and extensive use since 2023 — Court held that India Law Library Docid # 2428080
(207) OTMAR FORSTER Vs. ANIL SARAOGI[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 13A, Rule 3 — Summary Judgment — Grounds for — Court may grant summary judgment if there’s no real prospect of success for the opposing party and no compelling reason to hear oral evidence — The plaintiff sought summary judgment for commission based on an agreement. The defendant contended a mutual modification of the commission rate and termination of the agreement, providing India Law Library Docid # 2428081
(208) TULARAM KASHYAP Vs. LIMSAR AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(2) and 166 — Appeal against dismissal of claim petition — Dismissal by Tribunal on ground of failure to prove vehicle involvement and rash/negligent driving — Appellant/claimant argued Tribunal overlooked evidence, wrongly presumed collusion, and appliedHyper-technical reasoning — Supreme Court precedent emphasizes liberal approach and preponderance of probability over strict proof in MACT cases, distinguishing them from criminal trials. India Law Library Docid # 2428083
(209) M/S. STEEL CENTRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 — Rule 86A — Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Constitutional validity challenged on grounds of violation of natural justice — Held, rule does not explicitly provide for a pre-blocking hearing, but sub-rule (2) allows for post-decisional objections and sub-rule (3) limits the blocking period to one year — These provisions adequately safeguard a dealer’s interest — Rule cannot be India Law Library Docid # 2428084
(210) BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ANIL KUMAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) — Section 223 — Examination of complainant — Notice to accused before taking cognizance — Proviso to Section 223(1) mandates that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard — This is a procedural safeguard not present in the earlier India Law Library Docid # 2428095
(211) SMT.LALITABAI AND OTHERS Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(1) — Appeal against award of compensation — Court reiterated that while compensation should not be a windfall or a pittance, it must be just, reasonable, and based on rational factors, not whims or guesses — Tribunal's reliance on an estimated monthly income without proper justification or India Law Library Docid # 2428117
(212) PRINCE PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — Ingredients — For framing charge, there is no requirement for injury to be on a vital part of the body; merely causing hurt is sufficient. The intention or knowledge that the act might cause death is crucial. Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential. The intention can be inferred India Law Library Docid # 2428118
(213) MUKESH @ MADAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Grant of Bail — Delay in Trial — Undertrial prisoners should not be incarcerated indefinitely, especially when trial delay is not attributable to the accused — Prosecution must complete trial within a reasonable period India Law Library Docid # 2428588
(214) SHANU @ SYED SADIQ ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Condition of restricting travel abroad — Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with a condition not to leave India without court permission — Petitioner sought relaxation of this condition to travel abroad for business purposes — Held, the right to travel abroad is integral to the right to livelihood and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution — State cannot arbitrarily deprive a person of their means of liveli India Law Library Docid # 2428589
(215) HUKUM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Bail — Speedy Trial — Undue delay in trial can be a ground for granting bail, even for serious offences, as it infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage must be upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2428590
(216) PRITIVIRAM @ PRITHVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Bail — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial — Petitioner in judicial custody for over four years with negligible trial progress (3 out of 42 witnesses examined) — Trial recommenced de novo due to procedural developments — Prolonged pre-trial incarceration without meaningful progress infringes fundamental right to life and personal liberty under India Law Library Docid # 2428591
(217) RAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of Process — FIR lodged by a compulsive litigant against bank officers for alleged offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, when the subject matter of the dispute was already pending in civil courts and involved a service dispute regarding increments, pension, and compulsory retirement — Such initiation of criminal India Law Library Docid # 2428592
(218) ANIL KUMAR DHARENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7A — Scope — Applies to private individuals who obtain undue advantage to influence public servants — Petitioner, a private individual, accused of demanding bribe to ensure selection by changing OMR sheet, falls within the ambit of Section 7A. (Paras 11, 12, 13) India Law Library Docid # 2428593
(219) SHANKAR SINGH Vs. THE MINING ENGINEER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-07-2025 Mines and Minerals — Mining Lease — Cancellation — Lease for Plot No. 4 Veerpur cancelled by Mining Department on June 14, 1984, as the area fell within a protected forest area — This cancellation order was not challenged by the plaintiffs. India Law Library Docid # 2428594
(220) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TULSI RAM[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-07-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Appellate court's power to reverse an acquittal order is limited — Reversal is justified only if the trial court's judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact, or if there is partial or selective appreciation of evidence — If two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be preferred. India Law Library Docid # 2428679