India Law Library

User not Logged..

Quick Judgments/News

Free Artificial Intelligence Drafting

Latest Cases

First
«
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
»
Last

(221) DINESH KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Demand of illegal gratification — Essential element for offence — Proof of demand is sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 of the Act — Mere possession or recovery of amount without proof of demand is insufficient to constitute an offence — Apex Court judgments support this principle — Clear and unimpeachable evidence of demand or
India Law Library Docid # 2434696

(222) AMJAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Inherent powers of High Court — Power to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice — High Court should be slow to interfere if prima facie case is made out — Criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage unless allegations are inherently improbable or absurd.
India Law Library Docid # 2434697

(223) GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE ACHINTKOT Vs. GURDWARA GURSAR SATLANI SAHIB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Revision petition against order dismissing application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing appeal as time-barred — Maintainability — Court considering whether such an order constitutes a decree — Analysis of various High Court and Supreme Court judgments on whether dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation, after dismissing an application for
India Law Library Docid # 2435201

(224) GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Property Law — Co-ownership — Partition — Memorandum of Partition — Even if an unregistered memorandum of partition is not legally effective to sever co-ownership, parties acting upon it and remaining in exclusive possession of their respective portions for a significant period, with subsequent sales and constructions, cannot be prevented from alienating their shares or raising constructions on their possessed portions — The
India Law Library Docid # 2435202

(225) BALBIR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS Vs. RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Hindu law — Joint Hindu Family property — Alienation by Karta — Legal necessity — Sale of property by karta (Ghasi Ram) challenged by sons (plaintiffs) as illegal and void for want of legal necessity — Plaint alleged Ghasi Ram was a spendthrift person — Written statement by purchasers (defendants) asserted sale was for legal necessity, including repayment of loan for construction, daughter's marriage, and business
India Law Library Docid # 2435203

(226) P. SAMYNATHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. D. MURUGAN[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — Appeal against judgment and decree — Suit for recovery of money based on promissory note and declaration that settlement deed is null and void — Trial court allowed the suit — First appellate court partially allowed the appeal.
India Law Library Docid # 2434842

(227) JEEVASIVAKUMAR Vs. C.R. CHANDRAN (DIED) THR. LRS.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Court fee valuation — When considering a petition to reject a plaint, the Court must rely solely on the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it — Relying on external evidence, such as a valuation certificate produced by the defendant at this stage, is incorrect — The proper procedure for a defendant to dispute valuation is to file a written
India Law Library Docid # 2434843

(228) STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. RANBIR SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — Not a matter of generosity — Pursuit of substantial justice cannot prejudice the opposite party — Delay should not be condoned as a matter of course — Sufficient cause must be shown.
India Law Library Docid # 2435237

(229) P.R. SASI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120B — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) — Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery — Appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court examined the evidence regarding the identity of the accused, the genuineness of alleged forged documents, and the existence of a criminal conspiracy for obtaining a fraudulent loan.
India Law Library Docid # 2434954

(230) KIRTI JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. CHAMANLAL JAIN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 17-10-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 22 Rule 4 — Substitution of Legal Representatives (LRs) of deceased defendant — Rejection of application — Rejection of substitution application merely for non-filing of death certificate and family tree, despite lack of opposition from defendants regarding legal heirs, is erroneous, especially when the power of substitution is inherent to the court and should be
India Law Library Docid # 2435720

(231) SHANTI BAI JARWAL Vs. SMT. MANJU KUNARE AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-10-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act, 2007) — Section 16(1) — Right to Appeal — Interpretation — An appeal under Section 16(1) is maintainable only at the instance of a "senior citizen or a parent" aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal, and is not maintainable at the instance of a child, relative, or any other "aggrieved person" — The language of Section 16(1) is plain, unambiguous, and restrictive, and must be read as it is, without
India Law Library Docid # 2435721

(232) ANKIT RATHORE AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-10-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302/34, 449/34, 376(d)/34, 376(dh) — Murder and House-trespass for capital offence — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires full establishment of circumstances, consistency only with guilt, conclusive nature, exclusion of every other hypothesis, and a complete chain of evidence — Mere suspicion cannot replace legal proof —
India Law Library Docid # 2435722

(233) UNION OF INDIA Vs. KULDEEP KOUR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 16-10-2025
J&K Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (RAIP Act) — Appeal against Arbitrator's award — Challenge to the compensation rate determined for requisitioned land — Held that the Arbitrator did not err in increasing the compensation rate from Rs. 2,60,000 to Rs. 7,00,000 per kanal, considering the commercial nature of the property and its surroundings.
India Law Library Docid # 2434078

(234) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 16-10-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance claim — Breach of policy condition — Non-standard basis — Insurance company cannot repudiate a claim solely on the ground of breach of a condition if the breach has not directly or indirectly contributed to the accident. In such cases, the claim is to be settled on a "non-standard basis" by deducting a proportionate sum or up to 75% of the admissible claim, referencing
India Law Library Docid # 2434079

(235) DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 16-10-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 307, 326, 109, 34 — Murder, Attempted Murder, Grievous Hurt, Abetment, Common Intention — Conviction for murder and attempt to murder based on eyewitness testimony and recovery of service weapon — Evidence established presence of appellants at scene, use of appellant Dev Raj's service rifle, and instigation by appellant Balwan Singh — Plea of self-defence
India Law Library Docid # 2434080

(236) SHANKAR CHANBASSAPPA CHILLALSHETTI AND OTHERS Vs. DR. J. J. MAGDUM TRUST, JAYSINGPUR AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR)] 16-10-2025
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Section 7(7) — Appeal period — Condonation of delay — Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited to 60 days beyond the initial 60-day period, making the maximum appeal period 120 days from the receipt of the order. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is excluded by necessary implication.
India Law Library Docid # 2434383

(237) LALIT RAMKRUSHNA BODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025
Disciplinary Proceedings — Second Enquiry — Validity — Employee exonerated in first enquiry — Employer appoints new Enquiry Officer and orders fresh enquiry — Court quashes second enquiry if no valid reasons are provided for disagreeing with first enquiry report.
India Law Library Docid # 2434517

(238) VILAS BABANRAO KALOKHE Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) PUNE[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 276 C (2) — Willful attempt to evade tax — Non-payment of self-assessment tax along with return — Default in payment of self-assessment tax on due date is not sufficient to attract Section 276 C (2) unless it is established that the evasion was willful or intentional — Mere delay in payment after filing return does not equate to willful evasion, especially when tax is paid later with
India Law Library Docid # 2434523

(239) ASHAPURA OPTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 — Suit for possession of immovable property — Elements — Plaintiff must prove possession and dispossession within six months prior to filing suit, otherwise than in due course of law — Court’s inquiry limited to possession and dispossession, not title — Prior peaceful settled possession is evidence of title and can be protected even against rightful owner if dispossessed by
India Law Library Docid # 2434524

(240) PRAKASH CHIMANLAL SHETH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025
Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 8(1)(h) — Exemption from disclosure — Information that would impede investigation or prosecution of offenders — Petitioner sought information related to passport, Lookout Circular (LOC), and detention of an accused in a private complaint case — Rejection by Public Information Officer justified as disclosure could impede investigation and prosecution.
India Law Library Docid # 2434546

First
«
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
»
Last