(421) THIRUSANGU Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF VILLUPURAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Injunction — The petitioner filed a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from altering a piece of land (Odai) into a pathway (Pattai) — Whether the land in question is an Odai or Pattai and whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary to determine this — The petitioner argued that the land is an Odai and essential for drainage, and that an Advocate Commissioner is needed to inspect and note the p India Law Library Docid # 2420335
(422) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. UTPAL DATTA TALUKDAR[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Railway Establishment Code — Rules 504 and 542(2)(b) — Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 — Rule 40 — The respondent was dismissed from service without pension and gratuity — He sought the release of his Provident Fund, Group Insurance Scheme dues, and Leave Encashment benefits — Whether a dismissed Railway employee is entitled to Leave Encashment benefits — The petitioners argued that under Rule 504 IREC, a dismissed employee is not entitled to Leave Encashment as the leave ceases from the India Law Library Docid # 2420432
(423) THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR BSNL AND OTHERS Vs. SHASHI KANT AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 BSNL Management Services-Telecom Operations Stream-Recruitment Rules, 2023 — Empanelment and transfer of officers within BSNL — The petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief General Manager (CGM) to Principal Chief Engineer (PCE), which he contested — The main issue is whether the transfer from CGM to PCE was a demotion and if the empanelment process followed by BSNL was valid — The petitioner argued that the transfer was not a demotion as both posts have the same pay scale — They also c India Law Library Docid # 2420430
(424) LAITLUANGPUI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 — The appellants challenged the acquisition of their lands in 2010 and sought reassessment of compensation under the Act, 2013 — Whether the appellants were entitled to further compensation and if the acquisition process needed to be reassessed — The appellants argued that they were inadequately compensated and sought fresh acquisition proceedings for fair compensation — The respondents conte India Law Library Docid # 2420431
(425) SHAFIQA BANO Vs. NIYAZ MEHMOOD MIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 12-11-2024 Agreement to Sell — The petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of a contract, declaration, possession, and injunction against the respondent — The dispute involves an agreement to sell and a Memorandum of Understanding — The main issue is whether the trial court erred in allowing the respondent to withdraw an application without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond — The petitioner argued that the trial court's decision to allow the withdrawal without her response prej India Law Library Docid # 2420484
(426) MOHD. AZAM Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 12-11-2024 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section (8)(1)(a)(i) — Detention — The petitioner challenged the detention order on grounds of non-application of mind, lack of subjective satisfaction, and failure to provide relevant material in a language understandable to him — The detention was based on outdated FIRs, and the petitioner was not provided with all necessary documents or informed in his local language, violating his rights — The detention was justified due to the petitioner's repeate India Law Library Docid # 2420512
(427) M/S. SIGNOTRON (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. NAUTICA HOSPITALITY CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Admission of Notice under Transfer of Property Act — The court held that an unambiguous admission by the defendant regarding the receipt of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is sufficient for the court to pass a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure — Even if there are subsequent notices, the admission of the first notice can be relied upon if it is clear and not expressly waived. India Law Library Docid # 2420569
(428) KASHINATH MONDAL AND OTHERS Vs. SWAPAN PAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 24 — West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 — Effect of Repeal of Statute — The complete repeal of a statute, without any saving clause, extinguishes all inchoate rights arising under the repealed statute and destroys any accrued causes of action based on it (citing Qudrat Ullah vs. Municipal Board, Bareilly and State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal — A repeal does not revive rights or provisions that were previously invalidated or struck down (general legal India Law Library Docid # 2420570
(429) SRI MOHAN @ KAJU SHAW Vs. OM PRAKASH SHAW[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Limitation under Article 137 of the Schedule — The court held that Article 137 is not an absolute bar but casts a suspicious circumstance if the probate application is filed after three years from the death of the testator — Delay beyond three years must be explained, but it does not automatically disentitle the applicant from obtaining probate — The court considered the specific facts of the case, where the first application was filed within two years and the second withi India Law Library Docid # 2420571
(430) RABINDRA NATH MONDAL Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA MONDAL, SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES, SMT. BABY MONDAL AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Admissibility of Commissioner's Report — The court held that a report submitted by a commissioner is evidence like any other evidence in the suit but is not binding on the court — The court has the full power to arrive at its own conclusion based on the commissioner's report along with other evidence on record. India Law Library Docid # 2420572
(431) AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PEDALA SIVA KOTAIAH KOTAIAH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 505 of 2010 dated 28.06.2011.This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 505 of 2010 dated 28.06.2011. The appellant is the hirer/APSRTC of Bus bearing No.AP 07 Y 8702 (h India Law Library Docid # 2420872
(432) CHAPA VISWASWARA RAO Vs. CHAPA RAMACHAMDRA RAO DIED PER LRS. RR 2 TO 4 AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 The dispute is between the real brothers about the immovable property in an extent of Ac.2.67 cents situate in Sankili Village which was not earned by them out of their own exertions. This property belonged to their natural father Sri Chapa Lakshmana Rao who is no more now. India Law Library Docid # 2420867
(433) TAYI RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DIED) PER LRS AND OTHERS Vs. SMT KOKA AKHILA BAI (DIED) AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12-9-2000 in O.S.No.110 of 1992 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. The suit is filed for partition of plaint A, B, C and D schedule properties between the plaintiffs and defendants. Subsequently, plaint A schedule property was deleted from suit, so the dispute is relates plaint B, C and D schedule properties. India Law Library Docid # 2420871
(434) STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS Vs. M/S TASHI DELEK GAMING SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.[SIKKIM HIGH COURT] 12-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(2)(a)(ii) — The primary legal point in this case is that an arbitration clause within a contract is considered separate from the contract itself — Even if the contract is deemed invalid, illegal, or terminated, the arbitration clause can still be valid and allow for the resolution of disputes — This is due to the separability presumption recognized under the Arbitration Act — This means that parties who sign a contract with an arbitration agree India Law Library Docid # 2421041
(435) BKS GALAXY REALTORS LLP Vs. SHARP PROPERTIES[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 11-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 8 and 37 — The case involves a dispute over a property development project in Navi Mumbai — The appellants and respondents had various agreements, including a Joint Development Agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which led to conflicts regarding their obligations and rights — The main issue is whether the disputes should be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the Agreement for Sale, or if the MoU and Allotment India Law Library Docid # 2419579
(436) EKTA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHRADDHA SHELTERS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 11-11-2024 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12-A — Development Management Agreement and a Deed of Guarantee, with the Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 35,03,62,620. — The main issue is whether the suit should be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is sought — The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any urgency in the suit, making the pre-institution mediation mandatory — India Law Library Docid # 2419594
(437) M/S. TRULY PEST SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED (BEING A MSME) Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (P.C.M.E.) CENTRAL RAILWAY.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 11-11-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — The petitioner was awarded a contract by the Central Railway for pest and rodent control — Due to increased minimum wages, the petitioner sought additional compensation, which was disputed by the Railways — The main issue is whether the arbitral award dismissing the petitioner's claim for additional compensation should be set aside under Section 34 — The petitioner argued that the sole arbitrator was ineligible due to a conflict of interest, India Law Library Docid # 2419595
(438) ARJUN Vs. SHRI DHARAMDAS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 11-11-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — The case involves a review application arising from a judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging an eviction decree — The tenant sought to introduce additional evidence (NOC) to prove tenancy — Whether the court misapplied Order XLI Rule 27 by considering the application under the wrong clause — The tenant argued that the court should have considered the application under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) and not (1)(b), claiming an error apparen India Law Library Docid # 2419599
(439) P. J. RATHOD, M.SC. Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 11-11-2024 Arbitration — Interest — The petitioner sought interest on an awarded amount until actual payment, despite the amount being deposited in a court other than the Executing Court — Whether interest stops accruing once the amount is deposited in a court other than the Executing Court — Interest should continue until actual payment is made — The decree is satisfied upon depositing the amount with interest, and no further interest should accrue — The court held that depositing the amount in a non-exec India Law Library Docid # 2419600
(440) SRI M. LAKSHMA NAIK AND OTHERS Vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF TELANGANA LIMITED AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 11-11-2024 Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Board) Service Regulations — Regulation 6(a) — The petitioners, Sub-Engineers at (TRANSCO), challenged the deletion of a provision that allowed them to be appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers by transfer — The constitutionality of the TRANSCO's order dated 08.09.2022, which amended the service regulations, was questioned — The petitioners argued that the amendment was contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, and the tripartite a India Law Library Docid # 2419771