(201) AMAL BAROI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 24-11-2025 Criminal Law — Conviction — Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — The prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt — Even in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, pointing only to the guilt of the accused — Conviction cannot be based merely on inferences drawn from some statements of witnesses, especially when India Law Library Docid # 2436636
(202) YASIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 24-11-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) — Possession of Ganja (Intermediate Quantity) — Appeal against conviction — Death of Appellant 1 (A1) pending appeal — Appeal against A1 abates — Appeal regarding Appellant 2 (A2) proceeds — Prosecution evidence (PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13) proves search and seizure of 1.500 kgs of ganja from A1 India Law Library Docid # 2436659
(203) SHARAYU Vs. SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 24-11-2025 Caste Certificate — Verification — Invalidation of 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe claim — Undisputed pre-constitutional documents (1925, 1932) showing petitioner's grandfather and cousin grandfather as 'Halbi' — Committee erred in rejecting claim based on a stray pre-constitutional entry (1929) of 'Koshti' for the petitioner's great great grandmother (paternal side's wife) — Pre-constitutional documents carry higher probative value — India Law Library Docid # 2437000
(204) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHRI NARAYAN[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 24-11-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Necessary ingredients — Failure of prosecution to prove initial demand along with approximate date/time, and subsequent demand — Mere inquiry by accused "whether he brought the amount" does not constitute 'demand' as required by law — When the prosecution fails to prove demand, mere India Law Library Docid # 2437007
(205) IRFAN Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-11-2025 Criminal Law — Rape (IPC Section 376) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Act, Section 4) — Appeal against conviction — Appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix (victim) — Consistency of testimony — Allegations of rape against a victim aged less than 17 years by a building co-tenant — Victim's testimony India Law Library Docid # 2435959
(206) RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. DEVENDER YADAV AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Examination — The court, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, must only examine the averments made in the Plaint and not the defense or disputed facts — Rejection is warranted only if the Plaint discloses no cause of action India Law Library Docid # 2435960
(207) SONALI JAIN Vs. DHEERAJ CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Family Law — Custody of Minor — Best Interest and Welfare of Child — Paramount consideration is the minor’s physical, emotional, moral, and intellectual welfare, transcending the legal rights or emotional claims of the parents — Court must guard against the bitterness of matrimonial disputes clouding the judgment on the child's welfare. India Law Library Docid # 2435961
(208) MR. SUNNY SANGWAN Vs. DR. SAURABH SHANDILYA THROUGH HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NIKHIL PRASAD OJHA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Written Statement — Timelines for filing — Extension of time beyond 90 days — Extension must be granted only in exceptional circumstances, by way of exception, and only if the defendant demonstrates bona fide reasons supported by credible material — Extension cannot be granted where delay stems from negligence, indifference, lack of India Law Library Docid # 2435962
(209) DEVENDER SINGH Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification — Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction — Mere proof of acceptance or recovery of currency notes without evidence of demand is insufficient to establish the offence — Conviction requires proof of prior demand for illegal gratification by the public servant as a fact in issue India Law Library Docid # 2435963
(210) MR. APPUTHA RAJ Vs. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Education Law — Admission — Excess Admissions — M.Pharma (Drug Regulatory Affairs) — Cancellation of Admission — Student admitted under Management Quota removed after admission found to be in excess of sanctioned intake limit — College claimed excess admission due to technical glitch in ERP system — Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is empowered to regulate pharmacy education under Pharmacy Act, 1948 — India Law Library Docid # 2435887
(211) GODOLPHINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UM PROJECTS LLP AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37(1)(c) — Appeal challenging dismissal of Section 34 application — Grounds for setting aside Arbitral Award — Patent illegality — Failure to refer to every document or correspondence — An arbitral award must be informed by reasons (Section 31(3)) after appreciating and evaluating materials; however, it is not necessary for the Arbitral Tribunal to specifically refer to each and India Law Library Docid # 2435889
(212) ASKINS BIOFUELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 21-11-2025 Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 — Scope and Applicability — Standalone Distilleries and Jaggery Units — Applicability of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 to standalone distilleries manufacturing ethanol (Appellant 1, M/s. Askins) — Division Bench previously held that the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, as amended, does not apply to standalone distilleries established under notifications of the Ministry of India Law Library Docid # 2435891
(213) M/S. DNA ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — Sections 3(1), 8B, and 8C — Constitution of Commission — Role of Commission — Judicial Review of Inquiry Report — A One Member Commission appointed under Section 3(1) to inquire into a stampede during a victory celebration was primarily a 'fact finding body' tasked with ascertaining facts, reasons/responsible parties for the tragedy, and suggesting precautionary measures, not India Law Library Docid # 2435882
(214) G.APPAJI RAO Vs. D SATHEMMA DIED AND OTHERS BY LRS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-11-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale — Readiness and Willingness — Requirement to aver and prove continued readiness and willingness to perform part of contract from date of contract to date of hearing — Where time for performance (3 months) was stipulated in the agreement (Ex.A-2), the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance consideration or issue notice India Law Library Docid # 2436184
(215) ROUF AHMAD GANIE AND ANOTHER Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 21-11-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Bail — Ingredients and mandatory nature — Section 37 imposes cumulative conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity: (i) Public Prosecutor must be given opportunity to oppose, and (ii) The court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (iii) The accused is not likely to India Law Library Docid # 2436246
(216) SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD DAR Vs. U.T OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 21-11-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Bail — Commercial Quantity — Twin Conditions — Where an offense involves commercial quantity of contraband, the statutory bar under Section 37 applies, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail (Section 37(1)(b)(ii)) — The India Law Library Docid # 2436247
(217) YASIR AMIN KHANDAY AND ANOTHER Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 21-11-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 28 (Special Courts) — Designation of Special Courts — Plea that Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, lacked jurisdiction as Special Court rejected because Government Notification dated June 25, 2018, designated all Principal Sessions Judges in J&K as Special Courts to try POCSO offences — Similarly, Public Prosecutors were appointed as Special Public India Law Library Docid # 2436248
(218) MST KHATI Vs. ABDUL RASHID SALROO[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 21-11-2025 J&K Transfer of Property Act, 1977 — Section 138 — Transfer of Immovable Property — Registered Document Mandatory — Requirement for valid transfer — Section 138 mandates that no transfer of immovable property (in the Province of Kashmir) is valid unless it is in writing, registered, and registration is complete — No person shall take possession or commence building unless the transfer is valid under India Law Library Docid # 2436249
(219) IQBAL SINGH Vs. DURGA DEVI AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 21-11-2025 J&K Right of Prior Purchase Act — Right of Pre-emption — Nature of Right — Right of pre-emption is a statutory, secondary, or remedial right of substitution, not of re-purchase, requiring the pre-emptor to acquire the whole property; it is inherently a very weak right, looked upon with distaste by courts as it interferes with freedom to alienate property, and can be defeated by all legitimate means. India Law Library Docid # 2436263
(220) AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 21-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 43 Rule 1(r) — Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2) — Scope of Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction — The appellate court reviewing a discretionary order (grant or refusal of temporary injunction) will not substitute its own discretion unless the trial court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or ignored settled India Law Library Docid # 2436392