ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(201) AMANDEEP GILL AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 174A — Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C — Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 174-A IPC can be taken without a written complaint by the concerned public servant, as required by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C —The petitioners argued that the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. applies to Section 174-A IPC, and thus, cognizance could not be taken without a written compl
India Law Library Docid # 2418033

(202) SIDDHARTH TALWAR AND OTHERS Vs. SARIKA TALWAR[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 23(2) —Appellant and respondent were married in 2007 and have a daughter — They have been living separately since 2017, and the wife filed for maintenance under the DV Act in 2017 —The main issue is the interim maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter, which the husband is contesting —The husband argued that he has been financially supporting his family, lost his job, and faced financial difficulties — He also claimed that the wi
India Law Library Docid # 2418034

(203) DELHIVERY LIMITED Vs. KARE ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 11(5) and 21 — Delivery Services Agreements (DSAs) for logistic services — Disputes arose, leading Delhivery to seek arbitration —Whether Delhivery exhausted the pre-arbitral protocol before invoking arbitration and whether the Section 21 notice was valid —Delhivery argued that attempts were made to resolve disputes amicably, but they failed — They also contended that the arbitration clause should be invoked —Respondent claimed that Delhivery did
India Law Library Docid # 2418036

(204) KARAN SINGH MARAVI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Service Law — Removal from Service — Unauthorised Absence from duty —The appellant was removed from service due to unauthorized absence from duty for 455 days — His appeal to the Inspector General of Police was dismissed — Whether the appellant's unauthorized absence was willful or due to compelling circumstances — The appellant argued that his absence was due to his wife's health issues and financial difficulties, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Krushna Kant B. Parmar —The respondents main
India Law Library Docid # 2417996

(205) NIRMAL Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 19-09-2024
Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 — Sections 8,15, 25 and 29 — Bail — CCTV footage — The main issue was the failure of the police to maintain and provide CCTV footage, raising concerns about compliance with Supreme Court directives —The court directed that any failure to provide CCTV footage should result in a departmental inquiry and be treated as major misconduct —The court emphasized the importance of CCTV footage in protecting citizens' fundamental rights and preventing police
India Law Library Docid # 2417997

(206) QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 — Section 366 (3) — Power to make Rules — Petitioner filed a petition against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, challenging the demand for a license fee for mobile towers —Whether the demand for a license fee by the Municipal Corporation is lawful and whether the mobile towers should be regulated as hazardous business —The petitioner argued that the demand for a license fee is against the law and that mobile towers do not generate revenue or p
India Law Library Docid # 2417998

(207) ANNET KUMAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Service Law — Removal from Service — The petitioner a constable in the CRPF, was removed from service after being arrested for a scuffle while on leave — He was later acquitted of the charges — Whether the petitioner's removal from service was justified given his acquittal in the criminal case — Petitioner argues that the charges were not listed offenses, and the penalty of removal was disproportionate — The petitioner cited several judgments to support his case —Respondents argued that the char
India Law Library Docid # 2418297

(208) M/S. BARKATAKI PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICES A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Challenge the validity of Notifications No. 9/2023-CT and 56/2023-CT under the Acts — Whether the notifications extending the period for passing orders under Section 73(10) of CGST are ultra vires due to lack of GST Council recommendations Petitioner argues that the notifications were issued without GST Council recommendations, making them ultra vires — The orders passed under these notifications are without juri
India Law Library Docid # 2418298

(209) BAHAR AHMED LASKAR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Service Law — Dismissal from service —Petitioners, Head Constables in Assam Police, were dismissed for allowing trucks with illegal Burmese areca nuts to enter Assam without proper checks — Whether the dismissal penalty was proportionate to the misconduct — Petitioners argued that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the offense — Respondent contends that the penalty was appropriate given the gravity of the misconduct, as per relevant rules and regulations —The court
India Law Library Docid # 2418299

(210) BENJAMIN BASUMATARY @ BINJAMIN BASUMATARY Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 52A —Possession of 10 kgs of ganja —Whether the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, considering the procedural lapses and lack of clear evidence — The appellants argued that the investigation was flawed, with no clear evidence of possession, non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, and lack of independent witnesses — The prosecution maintained that the contraband w
India Law Library Docid # 2418300

(211) TULE RAM Vs. RAMNEEK SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 and 139 — Dishonour of Cheque — Whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and whether the petitioner could rebut the presumption of consideration — The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued as a security and not for a legally enforceable debt — He claimed the courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence — The respondent supported the judgments of the lower courts, asserting that the petitioner failed to rebut the
India Law Library Docid # 2418353

(212) NIKUNJ DOLATBHAI AHIR AND OTHERS Vs. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, SURAT DIVISION, SURAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 — Sections 72(4), 72(1) and 72(2) — The appellants challenged an order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat, regarding an injunction application (Exh.5) in Misc. Civil Application No.135 of 2024 — The main issue is the maintainability of the First Appeal against the order passed below Exh.5, which is not considered a "decision" or "decree" under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 —The appellants argued that the provisions of the Guj
India Law Library Docid # 2418689

(213) RAJESH HASTIMAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 19-09-2024
Gujarat Police Act, 1951 — Section 32H(3) — The petitioner is a senior citizen and animal rights activist — He reported police brutality after intercepting trucks carrying animals illegally — He was allegedly assaulted by a police inspector, resulting in injuries — The main issues are police brutality, improper handling of the complaint by the District Police Complaint Authority, and non-compliance with the Gujarat Police Act — The petitioner seeks a detailed inquiry into the police brutality in
India Law Library Docid # 2418730

(214) MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. BABURAO ISHWAR SATHE SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28A — Re-determination of compensation under — The main issue was whether the acquiring body could seek a reference under Section 28-A(3) — The petitioner argued that Section 28-A does not allow re-determination based on a Lok Adalat Award and that the acquiring body is not a "person interested" under Section 18 — The respondent argued that Section 28-A is a complete code and includes the acquiring body as "any person" who can seek a reference — The court hel
India Law Library Docid # 2417912

(215) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. KEKANAJE BALKRISHNA BHAT AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — The case involves a motor accident on 16.05.2016, resulting in the death — The claimants are her husband and son — The main issues are whether the deceased died due to the accident and if there was a breach of policy terms by the driver — The insurance company argued that the deceased did not die in the accident and that the driver did not have a valid license — The claimants argued that the deceased died due to the accident and presented evidence to supp
India Law Library Docid # 2417914

(216) MS. ASHWINI AGNI Vs. MR. KASSIM JAMULUDDIN SHAIKH AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 18-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 120A, 120B, 182, 211, 406, 383, 384, 499 and 506 — The petitioner, an advocate, challenges an order directing an investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 alleging various offenses — Whether the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is valid and whether the complaint has territorial jurisdiction — The petitioner argues that the Magistrate's order is illegal, lacks jurisdiction, and that
India Law Library Docid # 2417931

(217) SANDEEP SHARMA Vs. VIKRAM KUMAR PANDEY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 251 and 256 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The court held that what is necessary to be demonstrated before the Magistrate is that the complaint is filed in the name of the "payee" and if the person who is prosecuting the complaint is different from the payee, the authorization and the contents of the complaint are within his knowledge — The court also stated that the dismissal of a complaint at the threshold by the Magistrate on
India Law Library Docid # 2418017

(218) PERUMAL Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Medical urgency case involving a convict prisoner (petitioner) seeking extended leave to find a kidney donor for his son — Granted additional 40 days of leave for the medical emergency — Petitioner argues need for more time to find a donor; respondents (Additional Public Prosecutor) acknowledge no adverse remarks against the prisoner and the genuine reason for leave — Court grants 20 days of ordinary leave from 23.09.2024 to 12.10.2024 under specific c
India Law Library Docid # 2418156

(219) KAPIL @ NINNI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, and 307 —Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25 and 27 — The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case involving charges under the IPC and Arms Act — The FIR was registered after a shooting incident resulting in one death and one injury — Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail considering his criminal history and involvement in multiple cases — The petitioner argues he is not named in the FIR and was implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure — He cla
India Law Library Docid # 2417972

(220) GURMAIL SINGH Vs. RASWINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2024
Will — Genuiness of — ‘P’ the owner of the suit land, allegedly executed a Will in favor of the plaintiff — The plaintiff challenged two sale deeds executed by ‘P’ in favor of the defendant, claiming fraud and misrepresentation — The main issue was whether the sale deeds executed by ‘P’ were valid or the result of fraud and misrepresentation — The plaintiff argued that the sale deeds were fraudulent and that ‘P’ never intended to sell the land — He claimed the defendants took advantage of ‘P’s i
India Law Library Docid # 2417975