(301) 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
(302) 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
(303) 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
(304) 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
(305) 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
(306) 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
(307) 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
(308) 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
(309) JEMINI ANIL AND OTHERS Vs. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER PALA CIRCLE AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Sections 42(2), 46(3) Proviso — Timelines for Analysis & Reporting — Mandatory vs. Directory — The time limit of 14 days for the Food Analyst to analyse a sample and send the report (S.42(2), S.46(3)) and the requirement under the proviso to S.46(3) to inform reasons for delay are procedural. Non-compliance is not fatal to prosecution unless it causes prejudice to the accused, particularly concerning the right to get the second sample analysed. India Law Library Docid # 2424555
(310) APPU JOSEPH AND ANOTHER Vs. MAYINKUTTY AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Property Law — Title vs. Revenue/Resurvey Records — Resurvey records, being revenue records, do not confer title nor extinguish pre-existing title — Title based on valid documents prevails over incorrect entries in resurvey records — A suit based on title disputing resurvey findings is maintainable. India Law Library Docid # 2424556
(311) SUBHASH EKKA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 94 — Determination of Victim’s Age — Proof of Minority — In a prosecution under the POCSO Act, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident — Where the primary evidence relied upon is a school admission register entry, but the person who made the entry or provided the d India Law Library Docid # 2424708
(312) RUPINENI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of Interference — High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, cautiously, and sparingly — Court should refrain from acting as an appellate or revisional court or making premature decisions, especially when allegations, such as kidnapping potentially supported by evidence like CCTV footage or messages, necessitate a full-fledged investigation to ascertain truth. India Law Library Docid # 2424723
(313) BHUPATHI GATTUMALLU Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 17-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Delay in Lodging Complaint — Justification — Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered for offences including kidnapping, extortion, wrongful restraint, and criminal conspiracy — Complaint lodged nearly six years after the alleged incident (Nov 2018) — Petitioners contended delay was unexplained and fatal, while complainant attributed delay to fear of accused No. 1 and lodged the complaint only after accused No. 1’s arrest in an India Law Library Docid # 2424754
(314) 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
(315) 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
(316) 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
(317) HADIYA AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAMEERA. M.M AND ANOTHER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 14-03-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 39 — Enforcement of Maintenance/Advancement Right — Applicability across Religions — Section 39, protecting a third person’s right to maintenance or provision for advancement/marriage from property profits against a transferee, applies irrespective of the religion of the parties — A daughter’s right to marriage expenses from her father is enforceable under this section. India Law Library Docid # 2424553
(318) RATHEESH.S Vs. SREELEKSHMI.S AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 14-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance Proceedings — Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (Rajnesh Guidelines) — Mandatory Requirement — The filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by both parties in the format prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] is mandatory in all maintenance proceedings (including interim) before Family Courts, District Courts, or India Law Library Docid # 2424554
(319) 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
(320) 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