(221) ABHIJEET JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 21-11-2024 Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 — Rule 2(g)(i) — Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970 — The appellants, members of the J&K Forest Gazetted Service, challenged a judgment directing the notification of the "State Forest Service" and the preparation of a list for induction into the Indian Forest Service (IFS) — Whether the High Court can direct the State to notify the "State Forest Service" under Rule 2(g)(i) — The appellants argued that no Mandamus li India Law Library Docid # 2420487
(222) PRINCE PARVAIZ HANJI Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 21-11-2024 Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Section 3 — The petitioner filed a petition to quash a detention order — The petitioner challenged the detention order on grounds of non-awareness of bail, non-furnishing of material for effective representation, and non-addressal of representation against detention — The petitioner argued that the detaining authority was unaware of his bail status, did not provide necessary materials for representation, and India Law Library Docid # 2420488
(223) SHAKEEL MOHD Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 21-11-2024 J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8(1) (a) — Petitioner was detained under the Act, 1978, for alleged involvement in bovine smuggling and other criminal activities — Multiple FIRs were registered against him — The petitioner challenged the detention order on grounds of non-supply of necessary documents, non-communication of rights, and improper application of mind by the detaining authority — Petitioner argues that the detention was arbitrary, and the petitioner was not provided with all nec India Law Library Docid # 2420505
(224) OM PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. KHAZOOR SINGH AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 21-11-2024 Agreement to Sell — The appellants challenged an order by the Principal District Judge, Udhampur, regarding a specific performance of an Agreement to Sell land — The agreement involved 225 kanals of land, but the appellants only owned 80 kanals — The main issues were the enforceability of the unregistered Agreement to Sell, the delay in filing the suit, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance — The appellants argued that the agreement was unenforceable due to non-registr India Law Library Docid # 2420506
(225) SALEEM MOHD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 21-11-2024 Ranbir Penal Code — Section 323, 343 and 366 — Kidnapping — The appellants were convicted of kidnapping a woman, taking her to various locations, and attempting to force her into marriage — The main issues were whether the prosecutrix was kidnapped against her will and whether the appellants' actions constituted wrongful confinement and assault — The appellants argued that the prosecutrix willingly accompanied them and that the prosecution's story lacked material details and was inconsistent — T India Law Library Docid # 2420507
(226) KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. M/S. LAKSHMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 — Rule 4(b) — The petitioner challenged an arbitral award in favor of Respondent — The petitioner sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of a letter from the Senior Audit Officer — Whether the petitioner can introduce new evidence in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, filed before the 2019 amendment — The petitio India Law Library Docid # 2420535
(227) M/S COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS ACTION (CUPA) Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — For cleanliness in public parks in Bengaluru, particularly regarding pet waste management — The main issue is the enforcement of Solid Waste Management Bye-laws, 2020, and ensuring pet owners carry biodegradable poop bags in public parks — Petitioner argued that irresponsible pet parenting leads to unclean parks, and the authorities have failed to maintain cleanliness — They emphasized the need for pet owners to use disposal bags for pet waste — The State and B India Law Library Docid # 2420537
(228) S. PURUSHOTHAMA Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Service Law — Suspension — The petitioner challenged his suspension and punishment orders, which included withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect — He was accused of disobedience and insubordination — The main issues were whether the Chairman of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) had the authority to deploy the petitioner to the Belagavi Bench and whether the deployment order was valid without assuring payment of TA & DA — The petitioner argued that the Chairman India Law Library Docid # 2420555
(229) MUNIRAJU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Property Dispute — The petitioners claim ownership of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.1 granted to their predecessor in 1939-40 — They allege that the land has not been properly surveyed and fear eviction due to the State's utilization plans for the Ashraya Scheme — The main issue is the lack of proper survey (phodi, durasti, and hudbast) of the land, leading to confusion and potential illegal eviction of the petitioners — The petitioners request the court to direct the authorities to conduct the neces India Law Library Docid # 2420559
(230) MUJIBAR RAHAMAN KHALIFA Vs. MIZANUR RAHAMAN KHALIFA[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Partition Suit — Joint Ownership of Property — The defendant admitted substantial parts of the plaintiff's claim in his written statement but denied specific requests for partition — Whether the trial court correctly passed a preliminary decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on the defendant's admissions, despite some denials — The appellant argued that the admissions were not clear and unequivocal, and a full trial India Law Library Docid # 2420686
(231) AMAR NATH PAUL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 — Sections 3(2) — Petitioners claim ownership of plots, which were subject to acquisition proceedings under Act 1948 — Petitioners refiled a writ petition alleging non-service of acquisition notices and invalid awards — Validity of non-service of Section 3(2) notice — Petitioners argue non-service of notices and invalid awards — Respondents contend suppression of material facts, finality of earlier orders, and improper filing of a second w India Law Library Docid # 2420687
(232) SRI MONOJ ROY Vs. PREMANGSHU MONDAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Temporary Injunction — The plaintiff sought an injunction based on co-ownership claims from 1978 and 1980 deeds, but the defendants argued these conveyed demarcated lands, not joint ownership — The court found no prima facie case for a comprehensive injunction, dismissed the application, and upheld the lower court's order, noting the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient evidence and the balance of convenience favored the defendants. India Law Library Docid # 2420688
(233) A.V.RAVEESWARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the order dated 27.11.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.04 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. India Law Library Docid # 2420913
(234) CHENNAREDDY VENKATA SATYA NAGABHUSHANAM RAO Vs. CHENNAREDDY HAARANATH BABA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-11-2024 The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. A suit was filed in the year 2011 seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the wall shown as ‘MN’ in the plaint sketch to a height of 1.2 feet and in a length of 40.3 feet and the wall shown as ‘OP’ in the plaint sketch to a height of 7.7. feet, to a width of 1.4 feet and in a length of 13.4 feet are common party walls belonging to the Plaintiff and the Defendants and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with India Law Library Docid # 2420914
(235) VINEET TANEJA Vs. RITU TANEJA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Family Court Act, 1984 — Sections 6 and 12 — Petitioner challenges that orders from the Family Court regarding visitation rights and the cross-examination of counselors — The main issues were whether the petitioner could cross-examine the counsellors and whether the grandmother could have visitation rights — Petitioner argued that his right to cross-examine the counsellors was denied, which compromised the fair adjudication of the case — He also sought visitation rights for the grandmother — Res India Law Library Docid # 2419968
(236) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs. M/S FIBERFILL ENGINEERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Dispute over a contract for high mast signage systems — Appellant withheld Rs. 22,08,528 from respondent’ payments due to delays — Whether the Arbitral Tribunal erred in rejecting respondent’s claim for the withheld amount and interest — Respondent argued that the delays were not attributable to them and that appellant had not proven any actual loss due to the delays — Appellant contended that the withheld amount was justified under the contr India Law Library Docid # 2419969
(237) THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Vs. CA SHRI SUBHAJIT SAHOO AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (prior to the Amendment Act, 2006) — Section 21(5) — The case involves CA ‘S’, who was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) for issuing Utilisation Certificates without proper verification — Whether CA 'S' was guilty of professional misconduct under clause (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — The ICAI argued that ‘S’ was negligent in his duties, issuing certificat India Law Library Docid # 2419970
(238) SUKHVINDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. SMT VINITA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Rent and Eviction — The appellant was a tenant in a DDA MIG Flat owned by the respondent — Multiple rent agreements were executed, but the appellant did not vacate the property after the last agreement expired and used it for commercial purposes — The main issues were the recovery of possession of the property, arrears of rent, and mesne profits — The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, claiming the property was used for commercial purposes — The appellant argued that the T India Law Library Docid # 2419971
(239) MOHD AMIN Vs. MOHD IQBAL[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — The dispute involves a ‘Compromise Agreement' between parties regarding a property development project that was later abandoned — The respondent sought reversion of the land and compensation — The main issues were whether the claims were barred by limitation and whether the respondent was entitled to compensation for the demolished structures — The petitioner argued that the claims were barred by limitation and that the India Law Library Docid # 2419972
(240) PRATIBHA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 19 — Selection Process — Petitioners challenged the selection process of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Examination, 2013, claiming that reserved category candidates were wrongly selected against general category vacancies — Whether candidates who availed reservation benefits in the preliminary examination can be considered for general category posts in the final selection — Petitioner argues that the Reserved category candida India Law Library Docid # 2420066