ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(281) KULDEEP SINGH @ KEEPA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 392 and 302 — Murder — The appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing, questioning the identification of the accused and the validity of the evidence presented — The defense argued that the identification of the accused was flawed due to the lack of a valid test identification parade and that the testimonies of the witnesses were unreliable — The State maintained that the conviction and sentencing were justified based on the evidence and testimonies present
India Law Library Docid # 2420267

(282) SAYYARA Vs. LAXMAN AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Premature release of funds from an FDR — The petitioner sought the premature release of funds from an FDR in the name of her minor son, following a compensation award due to her husband's death in a motor vehicle accident — Whether the premature release of the FDR amount is justified for purchasing a plot and for the minor's education and maintenance — Petitioner argued that the funds were needed urgently to purchase a plot, which would benefit the minor in the long term, and for the minor's edu
India Law Library Docid # 2420274

(283) L. VEERAIYAN AND OTHERS Vs. S. THIRUPURASUNDARI AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 — Section 37(2) — The case involves a dispute over property originally owned by ‘R’, which was settled in favor of ‘L’ — The plaintiffs claim joint possession and allege illegal eviction attempts by the defendants — The main issues include the validity of certain sale and release deeds, the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share of the property, and whether the suit was properly valued and filed within the limitation period — The plaintiffs argue th
India Law Library Docid # 2420388

(284) DEBESWAR BASUMATARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(c) — Possession of 102.5 kg of ganja — The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing improper evidence handling, non-compliance with NDPS Act procedures, and discrepancies in the forensic report — The defense highlighted procedural lapses, such as the lack of proper inventory, non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and forensic reports — The prosecution maintained tha
India Law Library Docid # 2420435

(285) RAVINDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 19-11-2024
Ranbir Penal Code — Sections 324 and 325 — Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 4 and 25 — Petitioner was convicted for offenses under Sections 324 and 325 of the RPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act — The incident involved an attack with a sword and a lathi — The appeal challenges the conviction based on reliance on hostile witnesses, lack of proper examination of the accused, and discrepancies in evidence — The trial court relied on inadmissible evidence, failed to give the accused a fair opportunity to explain,
India Law Library Docid # 2420508

(286) SRI NARAYANA MURTHY H M Vs. THE REGISTRAR, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 13(4) — The petitioners sought a refund of court fees after their loan-related case was settled — The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dismissed their application for a refund — Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of court fees after their case was settled and dismissed as infructuous — The petitioners argued that court fees should be refunded when no final order is passed, cit
India Law Library Docid # 2420534

(287) SMT. KATYANI ROY CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS Vs. SHREE CHITTA RANJAN ROY AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Rent and Eviction — The plaintiff sought eviction of tenants for her residential needs, claiming she and her three unmarried daughters, along with a married daughter and her family, required more space — The tenants contested, arguing the plaintiff's needs were exaggerated and not genuine — Whether plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property — Whether the plaintiff's claimed residential requirements are genuine and reasonable necessitating eviction of the tenants — Plaintiff asserted ne
India Law Library Docid # 2420692

(288) SMT. AVA BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Appellant accused her husband and brother-in-law of torture, dowry demands, and an illicit affair — Previous cases under similar allegations were settled, but a new case was filed in 1996 — The trial court's acquittal was challenged, arguing that the evidence supported the charges, while the defense contended that the evidence was hearsay and lacked corroboration — The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not considering the consistent testimony
India Law Library Docid # 2420693

(289) ALL INDIA MANUFACTURES ORGANIZATION Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 — The petitioner challenged its eviction — The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's default in rent, found that the evidence for sub-letting, relied upon by respondent through unexamined documents, was insufficient — The Court criticized the lack of a preliminary inquiry and opportunity to be heard before termination of the tenancy, and concluded that the appellate court's decision was perverse — Therefore, the judgment wa
India Law Library Docid # 2420694

(290) SRI CHANDAN SAHA Vs. SRI AMALENDU DEY AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Stamp Act, 1899 — Sections 33 and 35 — Deficiency of Stamp Duty — The plaintiff sought an injunction over car parking spaces under a modified agreement, which the defendants claimed was insufficiently stamped and should be impounded — The trial court deferred the injunction decision and later set aside the application due to procedural issues — The court ruled that an insufficiently stamped agreement can still be considered for an injunction if it reflects a genuine modification, and that sectio
India Law Library Docid # 2420695

(291) A.P. ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 20.11.2006 in O.S.No.35 of 2005 passed by the Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.35 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari. The respondents herein i.e., District Collector, Executive Engineer and Project Direc
India Law Library Docid # 2420917

(292) PARIMI NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF A.P.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Criminal Appeal Nos.795 of 2015, 87 of 2016, 923 of 2016 and 163 of 2017 are directed against the Judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.461 of 2012 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.
India Law Library Docid # 2420918

(293) SRI. NEMALIAPUDI JANARDHANA Vs. UPPALAPATI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
These two revisions are filed challenging the orders, dated 27.09.2023, dismissing I.A.Nos.486 of 2021 and 487 of 2021 in O.S.No.152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. I.A.No.486 of 2021 is filed under Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint adding the relief of declaration of title and to carry out the consequential amendments. I.A.No.487 of 2021 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 & Section 151 C
India Law Library Docid # 2420919

(294) CHINTALA SATYA RAJU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
This Writ Appeal emerges from an order dated 12.09.2023 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11371 of 2020. The Appellants herein are the Petitioners in the Writ Petition. Heard Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents. W.P.No.11371 of 2020 was preferred by twenty seven (27) Petitioners seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the subject
India Law Library Docid # 2420920

(295) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MR. ANIL MANSUKHLAL DOSHI AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 19-11-2024
Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977 — Section 7(3) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 20 Rule 12 — Maximum Permissible Lease extension — Statutory right superseded the contractual right — The original lease granted to Caltex, later succeeded by HPCL, had a 20 year term with options for two 10-year extensions, but the Caltex Act, which transferred Caltex's rights to the Central Government, allowed for the renewal of leases, tenancies, or arrangements under the same terms — HPCL's argument t
India Law Library Docid # 2420998

(296) SACHIN RAMESH ATHAWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 19-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(n), 452 and 506 — The appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for rape and other offences — The court considered the lack of corroboration for the victim's testimony, the insignificant medical evidence, and the 24-day delay in reporting the incident — The absence of hymen injuries despite alleged repeated sexual assaults was a key factor in the court's decision — Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence and a
India Law Library Docid # 2421027

(297) SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 18-11-2024
Service Law — The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in 2019 — He passed the written and physical tests but was later rejected due to an FIR registered against him in 2020 — He was acquitted in 2021 — Whether the petitioner is entitled to the job despite his acquittal and if he concealed information about the FIR during the application process — The petitioner argued that he disclosed the FIR during document verification and that his acquittal should restore his eligibility — The respo
India Law Library Docid # 2419841

(298) ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY SAHNI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 18-11-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 34 — Murder — The motive was linked to a no-confidence motion against one of the appellants — The main issue was whether the appellants were rightly convicted based on the evidence presented — The appellants argued that the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in witness testimonies cast doubt on their involvement — The prosecution maintained that the appellants were guilty based on eyewitness accounts and the motive for the murder — The court fo
India Law Library Docid # 2419875

(299) HARE RAM SINGH Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-11-2024
Cyber Fraud — The petitioner was a victim of a cyber fraud where Rs. 2,60,000/- was siphoned off from his SBI account through a vishing attack — Despite promptly reporting the fraud, the bank did not restore the full amount — The main issues were whether the petitioner was negligent and whether the bank was liable to compensate for the unauthorized transactions — The petitioner argued that he did not share any OTPs and that the bank's security measures were inadequate — He sought restoration of
India Law Library Docid # 2419976

(300) M/S CHIBBA AGRO PVT LTD Vs. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-11-2024
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2024, which awarded the respondent Rs. 4,22,620/- with interest — The main issue was whether the suit should have been rejected due to the respondent's refusal to participate in pre-litigation mediation as required by Section 12A — The appellant argued that the suit should be dismissed because the respondent did not comply with the mandatory pre-litigation mediation process — The court found
India Law Library Docid # 2419977