(261) VED PARKASH PALIWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PANIPAT, NOW MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANIPAT, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100, Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) — Appeal — Res Judicata — Where a first appellate court did not properly consider whether an appeal was filed without proper authorization by a resolution, it should have either directed production of a power of attorney or examination of a competent witness to prove ratification of the action, particularly when the substantive right should not be India Law Library Docid # 2435197
(262) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MEENA DEVI AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Maintainability of claim — Claim by legal representatives of deceased who was riding the insured vehicle not maintainable under Section 163A as deceased was not a third party — Deceased was in the shoes of the owner as borrower of the vehicle. India Law Library Docid # 2434942
(263) DR. MRS. VINOD KUMARI SANGWAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 22(1) & 22(2) — Preliminary enquiry and charge-sheet — Mere non-mentioning of a specific rule does not invalidate an inquiry or proceedings if the substance and intent are clear and legal power exists India Law Library Docid # 2435165
(264) SUDHA MEDICAL COLLEGE, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 Medical Colleges — Affiliation — Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) — Consent of Affiliation (CoA) — Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Ordinance — Petitioner college sought affiliation for 150 seats, but was initially granted for 100 seats. NMC rejected the proposal for increased seats due to issues with CoA validity. RUHS issued a clarification stating original CoA was valid India Law Library Docid # 2435166
(265) HARISH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025 Electricity Connection — Installation — Rejection based on deleted unauthorized construction booking — Court directs the petitioner to apply afresh for electricity connection with BSES — Respondent BSES is directed not to raise any objection regarding unauthorized construction in view of MCD's clear submission that the booking is deleted and prior action was taken — Petitioner must comply with other India Law Library Docid # 2435537
(266) SMT. DEVKI KUSHWAH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 — Suit for Possession by Person Dispossessed — Scope of Inquiry — To maintain a suit under Section 6, the plaintiff need only prove illegal dispossession within six months from the date of the suit; proving title is not required. India Law Library Docid # 2435672
(267) PRAGMATIC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR PRANVIR SINGH KUSHWAHA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMET BOARD AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 M.P. Grah Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 (Adhiniyam) — Section 23 — Conduct of Business and Delegation of Powers Regulations, 2015 (Regulations) — Regulation 11(c)(iii), 11(d) — Tender and Contract — Quashing of tender cancellation order — Jurisdiction to accept/reject tender — Tender value exceeding Rs. 50 Crores — Statutory framework mandates that a 'Business Committee' (constituted under Regulation 11(c)(iii)) has the power to accept/reject tenders of this value, and its proceedings must be 's India Law Library Docid # 2435673
(268) LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GAMARA LEELU BEN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 (Appeal) — Claim Petition under Section 166 — Liability of Insurer — Defence of Insurance Company was that the deceased was driving the insured vehicle and had no driving license, therefore, not a 'third party' and insurer was not liable — Tribunal rejected the plea, imposing joint and several liability on owner, driver, and insurer — Appeal by Insurance Company India Law Library Docid # 2435674
(269) SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. LOVKESH SINGH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025 Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 — Section 26(2) — Civil Revision — Madhya Pradesh Municipality (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 — Rule 19(2) — Mandatory requirement to deposit security for costs of revision — Rule 19(2) mandates that the petitioner must deposit Rs. 250/- as security for costs "at the time of presentation of the petition for revision" and non-compliance shall lead to dismissal of the petition. India Law Library Docid # 2435675
(270) PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. SARITA ARORA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 16-10-2025 Court Fees Act — Ad valorem court fee versus fixed court fee — Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and partition seeking to declare sale deeds void — Requirement for ad valorem court fee when challenging a sale deed — Distinguishing between an 'executant' and a 'consenter' of a sale deed — Where the plaintiff in a suit is a 'consenter' and not an 'executant' of the challenged sale deeds, India Law Library Docid # 2435676
(271) PRABHUDAYAL AGRAWAL Vs. SMT SWETA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 16-10-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 29 — Stay of execution proceedings — Conditions for invocation — Order 21 Rule 29 applies where a suit is pending against the holder of a decree of ‘such Court’ or of a decree which is being executed by ‘such Court’ — Interpretation of 'such Court' — The power to stay execution under Rule 29 flows directly from the fact that the execution is at the instance of the decree holder whose decree had been passed by that court only — If India Law Library Docid # 2435677
(272) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS GULLABU[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 15 and 22 — Acquittal — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference is limited — Appellate court can interfere only if the trial court's view is impossible or perverse — If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal. India Law Library Docid # 2434039
(273) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SUSHILA GUPTA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 15-10-2025 Land Acquisition Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Return or acquisition of land — Court directed Food Corporation of India to either return illegally occupied land or acquire it under the 2013 Act, with rental compensation for the period of occupation. India Law Library Docid # 2434077
(274) ARSHAD KARAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29, 37, 42, 50, 52A, 54 — Bail Application — Commercial Quantity — Mephedrone — Applicant arrested with 500 grams of Mephedrone, which is a commercial quantity — Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act apply — Court not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence India Law Library Docid # 2434521
(275) AMAN @ AMAAN JAMIR SHAIKH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PUNE CITY AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) — Section 3 — Detention Order — Grounds of Detention — Reliance on past offences for subjective satisfaction — Detaining Authority can refer to past offences and preventive actions India Law Library Docid # 2434522
(276) TAJRAJ Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 15-10-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet — Application for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet for offences under Indian Penal Code, Insecticides Act and Rules, and Environmental Protection Act — Held, it is settled law that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, or not at all. Procedure not followed by the India Law Library Docid # 2434535
(277) UMESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANDIT Vs. HEMENDRA MUGATLAL PAREKH AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Bombay Rents Hotel, House Rates Control Act, 1947 — Section 13(1)(k) and 13(1)(L) — Eviction — Non-user of premises and alternative accommodation — Landlord's burden of proof — Landlord must initially prove non-user for six months; then burden shifts to tenant to prove reasonable cause for non-user — Evidence of minimum electricity consumption and tenant's admissions of not residing in premises India Law Library Docid # 2434185
(278) KIRITBHAI CHANDRAKANT VYAS AND OTHERS Vs. DAXABEN CHHOTABHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7, Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Bar of limitation — In an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, the court examines the plaint and documents annexed. If the plaint, as averred, clearly shows the suit is barred by limitation, it can be rejected. India Law Library Docid # 2434186
(279) KALPESHBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI THAKKAR Vs. SONALBEN KALPESHBHAI THAKKAR[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 24 — Interim Maintenance — Order for interim maintenance passed during pendency of divorce petition remains valid even after initial dissolution of marriage if the divorce decree is subsequently set aside and the petition is remanded for retrial. India Law Library Docid # 2434187
(280) MUNNI Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-10-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151 — Inherent powers of Court — Recall of orders — Petitioner sought recall of previous orders based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), claiming she entered into it under coercion due to a prior Agreement to Sell (ATS) with third parties and partial payment received. Court found Petitioner’s claims inconsistent with her previous statements India Law Library Docid # 2434213