ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(241) SMT. AFRIN BEE Vs. MOHAMMAD SHADAB[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 20-11-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month — Husband argues that her petitioner is self-sufficient — Petitioner argues that the trial court did not consider respondent’s full income and that she deserves higher maintenance due to her husband's financial status — Respondent contends that petitioner is capable of supporting herself, citing her income from various sources and her political involvement — The court upheld th
India Law Library Docid # 2420124

(242) BHAGWAN Vs. MANI BAI[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 20-11-2024
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53A — Dispute over a piece of land — ‘U, the original owner, allegedly mortgaged the land to defendant No.1, who claims it was sold to him — The plaintiffs, 'U’ heirs, seek declaration of title and possession — Whether the lower appellate court was justified in denying the benefit of Section 53-A — Defendant No.1 argues he is entitled to protection under Section 53-A as he paid the full sale consideration and took possession of the land — The plaintiffs a
India Law Library Docid # 2420125

(243) VIRENDRA PAGARE Vs. DHARMESH JAIN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 20-11-2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(C) — Readiness and willingness to perform the contract — The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 agreed to sell a flat to him for Rs. 3.50 lakhs in 1995, but later sold it to defendant No.2 in 1997 — Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the sale to defendant No.2 was valid — The plaintiff argued that he had paid the full amount and was always ready to complete the sale, but defendant No.1 breached the
India Law Library Docid # 2420126

(244) CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW Vs. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 20-11-2024
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 — Section 94(2)(ii) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25 and 27 — The case involves a child in conflict with the law, arrested for an offence under IPC and Arms Act — The child's age at the time of the offence is disputed — Whether the accused was below 18 years of age on the date of the offence, which determines if the trial should be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board — The revisionist argues that the date of
India Law Library Docid # 2420127

(245) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NIRMALABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI BHATIYA AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Motor Accident Claims — Death in road accident — His heirs filed a compensation claim of Rs. 6,00,000, and the tribunal awarded Rs. 4,06,000 — The main issues were whether the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid license and whether the compensation awarded was adequate — The insurance company argued that the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident, thus they should not be liable for compensation — The claimants argued that the insurance company failed to prove the
India Law Library Docid # 2420197

(246) STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER Vs. MANGUBHAI KOYABHAI DAMOR AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25(f) and 25(h) — Termination — The respondent was terminated from his job as a laborer in 1998 — He claimed to have worked continuously since 1990 and sought reinstatement — The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with back wages after being terminated — The petitioner argued that the respondent was employed under a specific scheme that ended, and thus his termination was justified — They also claimed that the respondent ha
India Law Library Docid # 2420201

(247) KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. BALWINDER KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Respondent a sweeper at Kendriya Vidyalaya was dismissed from service on 03.07.1997 for alleged misconduct, including failing to perform duties and damaging school property — The main issue is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by respondent, given the notification dated 17.12.1998 that brought Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction from 01.01.1999 — The appellants argued that
India Law Library Docid # 2420252

(248) APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. MAN STRUCTURALS PRIVATE LIMITED[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36(3) — The dispute arose from a cancelled contract between Apollo International Limited and Man Structurals Private Limited, leading to an arbitration award of Rs. 14,44,70,000 in favor of the respondent — The petitioner challenged the order directing them to deposit the decretal amount with the High Court of Delhi, arguing it would cause a financial blockade — The petitioner argued that the arbitration award was based on unsubstantiated claims a
India Law Library Docid # 2420275

(249) SHAKRUDEEN AND ANOTHER Vs. RASHID AHMED AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 18 Rule 17A — Additional Evidence — Whether the additional evidence should be permitted, considering it was within the respondents' knowledge during the original trial and previously dismissed under Order 18 Rule 17 A CPC — The petitioner argues that the order suffers from material irregularity as the evidence was known to the respondents during the trial and had been previously dismissed — The respondents contend that the additional
India Law Library Docid # 2420276

(250) RAJ PAL Vs. SANJIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of Written Statement — The petitioner filed a revision petition to amend his written statement regarding an agreement-cum-compromise — The trial court had rejected this amendment request — Whether the petitioner could amend his written statement after the trial had commenced, as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC — The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary due to lack of communication and inadvertence by previous counsel — The resp
India Law Library Docid # 2420277

(251) MR. JOHN BASHA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 364 read with 201 — Murder — Accused applied for premature release under a government scheme — The main issue is whether the Governor's dissenting opinion against the State Cabinet's recommendation for premature release is valid — The petitioner argued that he is eligible for premature release under the scheme approved by the government, which requires completion of ten years of imprisonment — The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor
India Law Library Docid # 2420387

(252) M/S BARUAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Sections 13(2) and 17(1) — The petitioners challenged the State Bank of India's notices under the SARFAESI Act after their loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) — Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can condone the delay in filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act by applying the Limitation Act, 1963 — The petitioners argued that the DRT has the power
India Law Library Docid # 2420436

(253) NADIYA TABASSUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
NEET-UG 2024 — PwD category — Petitioner a visually impaired candidate, challenged her exclusion from the PwD category for MBBS admission despite securing a rank in NEET-UG 2024 — Her disability was assessed at 40% by multiple medical boards — Whether the medical boards followed the correct procedures and guidelines in assessing Nadiya's visual impairment and if her disability could be reduced below 40% using advanced aids — Petitioner argued that the medical boards did not use advanced low visi
India Law Library Docid # 2420437

(254) STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS Vs. DIPENDRA ADHIKARI AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Land Acquisition and Compensation — The case involves a dispute over compensation for land acquired in 1975 for building the Raj Bhawan in Guwahati — The land belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents — The main issue is whether the respondents are entitled to compensation for the land, given the conflicting claims about its ownership and acquisition — The petitioner (State of Assam) argues that the land in question was not owned by the respondents' predecessor and that compensa
India Law Library Docid # 2420438

(255) ABDUL MAJEED LONE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 20-11-2024
Land Acquisition — Rental Compensation — The petitioner claims ownership of land in Tangdhar, occupied by the Army since 1978 without compensation — Whether the petitioner is entitled to rental compensation and whether the Army's occupation of the land is legal — The petitioner argues that the non-payment of rent violates his constitutional rights and that the Army's occupation is illegal — The Army denies occupying the land, while the Revenue Authorities confirm the occupation without compensat
India Law Library Docid # 2420489

(256) KISHOR N Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279 and 304A — Causing death by negligence — The conviction was upheld by the First Appellate Court after multiple absences by the petitioner's counsel — Whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal without reassessing the material evidence in the absence of the appellant — The petitioner's counsel argued that the First Appellate Court should have reassessed the evidence and provided a fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard, despite t
India Law Library Docid # 2420524

(257) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEUROSCIENCES (NIMHANS) Vs. S ANITHA JOSEPH[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 — Rule 43C — The petitioner challenged the CAT’s order granting Child Care Leave (CCL) to the respondent for 120 days — Whether the Tribunal's order to grant CCL was justified and whether leave in public employment is a matter of right — Petitioner argued that granting such long leave would disrupt ICU operations and that leave is not a matter of right but involves various factors — The respondent justified the need for CCL, citing her spotless service
India Law Library Docid # 2420536

(258) DILIP KUMAR BAJAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY, KOLKATA[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Metro Railways (construction of works) Act 1978 — Section 25 and 22 — The petitioners, former owners of a building in Kolkata, claimed compensation from the Metro Railway for loss of rent, which vacated the premises due to damages caused by metro construction — The case has a long history with multiple court hearings — The main issue was whether a valid lease existed between the petitioners and the Syndicate Bank, as no registered lease deed was produced — The petitioners argued that an oral sub
India Law Library Docid # 2420689

(259) KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 143, 147, 149, 332, 353 and 283 — Disaster Management Act, 2005 — Section 51(b) — Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — Section 3 — Petitioners, members of a political party, participated in a procession (Nabanna Abhijan) which was stopped by police near the West Bengal government building (Nabanna) due to COVID-19 guidelines — Whether the petitioners' actions constituted offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 332, 353, 283 of the IPC, Section 51(b
India Law Library Docid # 2420690

(260) BHAVESH RAJNIKANT KAMPANI Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 20-11-2024
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 — Section 187 — The appellant challenged a KMC assessment order after a High Court directive reopened it — They submitted objections but didn't appeal the initial order as required — The High Court dismissed their writ petition without fully considering their objections and procedural issues — The appellant argued the Hearing Officer ignored key evidence — Citing Supreme Court precedents, they sought a reevaluation — The Court found the Hearing Officer's c
India Law Library Docid # 2420691