(221) NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. SHREE ELECTRICALS & ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Applicability to Section 34 Applications — The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting proceedings bona fide in a court lacking jurisdiction or similar cause, are applicable to applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA) for setting aside an arbitral award — Section 43 of the ACA makes the Li India Law Library Docid # 2424282
(222) CHOKHENDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MAINTENANCE OF SR. CITIZEN TRIBUNAL, CHANDRAPUR AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 17-03-2025 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Section 16(1) — Right to Appeal — Availability to Children/Relatives — Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, although literally restricting the right to appeal against an order of the Maintenance Tribunal to only the senior citizen or parent, must be interpreted purposively and by applying the principle of casus omissus (accidental omission) — Considering the potential involvement India Law Library Docid # 2424301
(223) PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 17-03-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 19 — Sanction for Prosecution — Mandatory Requirement — Bar on Cognizance — Section 19(1) imposes an absolute and unambiguous bar on any court taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority specified in clauses (a) to (c) — The grant of sanction is a pre-condition for the court to acquire competence/jurisdiction to tak India Law Library Docid # 2424307
(224) SRI. M RAME GOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 — Rule 18 — Joining Time for Direct Recruits — Extension and Consequence of Non-joining — Rule 18(1) prescribes a joining period of fifteen days for directly recruited candidates — Rule 18(2) empowers the appointing authority to grant further time for joining upon satisfaction of good and sufficient reasons, by an order in writing — This extension under Rule 18(2) saves the appointment, which would otherwise lapse under Rule 18(3) if the India Law Library Docid # 2424353
(225) MR. VIVEK R NAIR AND ANOTHER Vs. TATA ELXSI LIMITED AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e), 19, 20 — Place/Venue of Arbitration — Party Autonomy — Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause — Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, parties are free to agree on the place (seat/venue) of arbitration (Section 20(1)) — Once the seat/venue is designated in the arbitration agreement (Bengaluru to the exclusion of all other courts), it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of that place for regulating the arbitral proceedings, aki India Law Library Docid # 2424357
(226) KARNATAKA HIRE PURCHASE ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025 — Constitutional Validity — Legislative Competence — Manifest Arbitrariness (Article 14) — The Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025, promulgated to protect economically vulnerable groups (defined in S.2(g)) from coercive recovery practices and usurious interest rates associated with micro/small loans, is not unconstitutional on grounds of manifest arbitrariness or India Law Library Docid # 2424382
(227) RAHUL SIVASANKAR Vs. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT BY STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 153A — Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups — Essential Ingredients — Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)) — To constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC, the words spoken or written must be uttered with a clear, manifest intention to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups or castes or communities — Criticism of government policy or actions, such as analyzi India Law Library Docid # 2424383
(228) SRI C.N.GOVINDARAJU MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. VAISHNAVI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — Section 175(3) — Reference of Private Complaint for Police Investigation — Mandatory Procedure — Hearing of Police Officer — Section 175(3) BNSS introduces mandatory procedural requirements before a Magistrate orders investigation on a private complaint — Unlike Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate must now, inter alia, consider the submissions of the concerned police officer prior to issuing directions for investigation — Failure to comply with t India Law Library Docid # 2424393
(229) PRABHU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 17-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Interference with Show Cause Notice/Notice of Enquiry — Exceptions — Ordinarily, a writ petition challenging a mere show-cause notice or a notice of enquiry issued by a statutory authority is not maintainable, as it does not constitute a final adverse order affecting rights — The proper course is for the noticee to reply and raise objections, including jurisdictional ones, before the authority — However, the High Court may interfere India Law Library Docid # 2424441
(230) T.VINOTH KUMAR Vs. S. SEKAR AND OTHER[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149 — Liability of Insurance Company — Breach of Policy Condition — No Valid Driving License — Pay and Recover Principle — In a third-party claim arising from a motor accident, the insurer cannot be completely exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the victim merely because the driver of the insured vehicle (who was also the owner in this case) did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident — Following the principles India Law Library Docid # 2424431
(231) M/S. STRATEGIC INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) M/S. STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICE PVT. LTD. Vs. MPHASIS LIMITED[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 14-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16, Section 34(2)(b)(i) — Arbitrability of Disputes — Allegations of Fraud — Jurisdiction of Arbitrator — The jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal to decide disputes arising from an agreement containing an arbitration clause is not ousted merely because one party levels allegations of fraud (inducement to enter agreement, non-disclosure) against the other — Such jurisdiction is displaced only if the allegations of fraud are serious and India Law Library Docid # 2424381
(232) M/S. BRUNTON DEVELOPERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE FALCON HOUSE Vs. UNITED BREWERIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 14-03-2025 Companies Act, 1956 — Sections 536(2), 537 (Corresponding to Companies Act, 2013 — Sections 334(2), 335) — Disposition of Property Post Commencement of Winding Up — Voidability — Validation by Court — Any disposition of a company’s property (including sale) made after the commencement of winding-up proceedings, unless the Court/Tribunal orders otherwise — Similarly, a sale held without leave of the Court/Tribunal after commencement of winding up is void under Section 537 (now S. 335) — India Law Library Docid # 2424385
(233) CELINE MARTINA Vs. T. JOSEPH ATHISAYAM (DIED) BY LRS AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 14-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Wills — Joint Will vs. Mutual Will — Revocability — A Will executed jointly by two or more testators in a single document, disposing of their property (whether held jointly or separately) to a third party, effective after the death of both, is considered a joint Will if it lacks reciprocal benefits conferred between the testators themselves — It does not become a mutual Will (implying irrevocability after the death of one testator who has received a benefit) merely because India Law Library Docid # 2424432
(234) ABHISHEK SUREKA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 13-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Cruelty — Dowry Demand as a Key Element — The legislative intent behind the insertion of Section 498A was to prevent the abuse of married women for want of dowry — The term 'cruelty' under this section is often understood in the context of harassment or torture for dowry demands — In the absence of any allegation of demand for dowry, quarrels between husband and wife or the demand for divorce by the husband or his relatives may not automatically amount to India Law Library Docid # 2423429
(235) SHRI THOUDAM RAGHUMANI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 13-03-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Die-in-Harness Scheme — The court applied the principle of res judicata and found the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim unsustainable due to a factually incorrect finding regarding the submission of a timely application — A writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme — The court found that one ground for rejection was already decided in a previous writ petition and thus barred by res jud India Law Library Docid # 2423522
(236) MOHD. SHAFI Vs. UT OF J&K THROUGH SHO[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 410 — Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), Section 302 — In a case based on circumstantial evidence, especially for murder by poison, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that unequivocally points to the accused’s guilt and excludes all other reasonable hypotheses — Proof of disclosure statements leading to recoveries must be reliable — The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction for murder by admin India Law Library Docid # 2423774
(237) S. CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Judicial authority must refer parties to arbitration if an arbitration agreement exists and a party applies for it no later than submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute — A preliminary objection regarding arbitration in a written statement constitutes such an application, but a nominated arbitrator should be independent and not an official of a party — The High Court disposed of an appeal by modifying the trial court’s India Law Library Docid # 2423775
(238) VIJAY LAKSHMI AND OTHERS Vs. VED PARKASH AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 — While Order 8 Rule 9 for subsequent pleadings like a replica to address new pleas in a written statement, the trial court has the discretion to allow or refuse such filings, and the rejection is not necessarily prejudicial if the party can still present evidence on the new issues — The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s rejection of the petitioners’ application to file a replica under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC India Law Library Docid # 2423776
(239) SMT. SUDERSHAN SHARMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Service Law — Pension — Recovery of excess pension paid due to departmental error should not be made from vulnerable pensioners, particularly without notice and after considerable delay, where the pensioner is not at fault, as it would be iniquitous and harsh, outweighing the employer’s right to recover — The High Court allowed an appeal, quashing the recovery of excess pension from an elderly widow and renal patient — The court found the overpayment resulted from departmental negligence, no not India Law Library Docid # 2423819
(240) COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SHARADUL AMARCHAND MANGALDASS & CO. THROUGH ITS PARTNER RITU BHALLA[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 13-03-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2 (c) — A bonafide interpretation of a court judgment in a legal notice, even if it differs from the court’s intended meaning, does not constitute criminal contempt of court unless the interpretation is wilful, deliberate, or obstructs the course of justice, especially when no judicial proceedings are pending — The High Court dismissed a criminal contempt petition initiated suo moto against a law firm for allegedly misinterpreting a previous court judgment India Law Library Docid # 2423820