(461) BLESSON P.B AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 145, 146, 155(3) — Contradiction and Impeachment of Witness — Use of Statements — The Evidence Act permits the use of only previous or former statements of a witness for the purpose of contradicting them or impeaching their credit — Statements made by the witness subsequent to their deposition in the instant case cannot be used for these purposes. India Law Library Docid # 2424559
(462) MANSOOR ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 27A & 2(viiia) — Financing Illicit Traffic — Proof Required — For framing a charge under Section 27A NDPS Act, there must be prima facie evidence indicating that the accused engaged in financing, directly or indirectly, any activity defined as “illicit traffic” under Section 2(viiia) — Mere phone contact (CDR) or inadmissible co-accused confessions, India Law Library Docid # 2424560
(463) K.R. HARIKRISHNAN AND OTHERS Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Pendency of Civil Suit — Criminal proceedings, which prima facie disclose offences like cheating and conspiracy, cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the underlying dispute has civil characteristics or because a civil suit concerning the same transaction is pending. India Law Library Docid # 2424561
(464) N. RAJAMONY Vs. SARADAMMA, [DIED; LRS RECORDED AND IMPLEADED] AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 2 Rule 2(3) & Order 23 Rule 1(3) — Effect of Withdrawal with Liberty on Subsequent Suit — When a suit is withdrawn with liberty granted under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) to institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter (which includes the cause of action), the bar contained in Order II Rule 2(3) against suing for reliefs omitted in the first suit does not apply to the subsequently instituted fresh suit — The effect of permission under Order XXIII Rule India Law Library Docid # 2424562
(465) SMT. SANGEETA DHRUVE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Service Law — Maternity Benefit — Contractual Employees — Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 — Rule 38 — Female government servants appointed on a contract basis are entitled to maternity benefits, including maternity leave with salary, as provided under Rule 38 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, read with the principles laid down in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 — The object of providing maternity benefits, rooted in constitutional principles (Articles 14, 15 India Law Library Docid # 2424688
(466) GC INDIA DENTAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND OTHERS.[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 10-03-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 144C — Procedure for Eligible Assessee — Mandatory Nature — Section 144C lays down a mandatory procedure for assessment involving variations proposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the case of an eligible assessee — Upon issuance of a Draft Assessment Order (DAO), the assessee has the right to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within 30 days. India Law Library Docid # 2424765
(467) CHIRAGBHAI ARVINDBHAI DESAI Vs. HEIRS OF PUSHPABEN D/O. AMBALAL JAVERBHAI AND WD/O MANUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 58, 59 and 113 — An amendment introducing a clearly time-barred claim under the Limitation Act, 1963, can be rejected by the court, even if the underlying transaction is alleged to be void, particularly when there is no reasonable explanation for the significant delay in seeking the amendment, as per principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. India Law Library Docid # 2423264
(468) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HITENDRASINH HARISINH ZALA AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378(1)(3) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 498-A, 306 and 114 — Appellate Court's Discretion in Acquittal Appeals — In an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the trial court's decision if the view taken by the trial court is reasonable and plausible, even if a different view is possible, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt — This is because, in acquittal appeals, there is a double presumption of in India Law Library Docid # 2423259
(469) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARESH @ GOPALBHAI JENTIBHAI UMRETHIA PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378(1)(3) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498-A, 306 and 114 — Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(10) — Benefit of doubt — An appellate court, hearing an appeal against acquittal has the power to review the evidence, it should not interfere with the trial court’s order of acquittal if the trial court’s judgment is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible — This restrain India Law Library Docid # 2423260
(470) NIRAV NIMMI CORPORATION Vs. ASHISH TRADERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Sections 2(1)(r), 28, 29, 48, 49(1)(a) and 124(5) — Copyright Act, 1957 — Section 48 — A registered trademark and copyright holder has a prima facie right to an interim injunction against infringement by an unauthorized user without a valid permitted use agreement, especially when the alleged prior user has ceased business. India Law Library Docid # 2423297
(471) JETTI SUNEEL KUMAR REDDY, SPSR NELLORE DT. Vs. STATE OF AP.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Penal Code (IPC) — Sections 363, 364, 302 and 201 — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3 (2) (v) — Appeal against the conviction and sentence — The appellate court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the child witness, noting significant delays in recording his statement — The court expressed serious doubts about the reliability of this testimony and the potential influence of the deceased's wi India Law Library Docid # 2423380
(472) SMT. SHAIK ASRIFOON AND OTHERS Vs. GUDDANTI VIJAYA KRISHNA AND ANOTHER[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — Sections 3(1) and 30 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 337 and 304-A — Rejection of claim for compensation — The claim was filed by the dependents of a deceased lorry cleaner who died after an altercation following a near-accident caused by a tractor — The appellate court considered whether the death arose “out of and in the course of employment” as required by Section 3(1) — The court distinguished the facts from a previous case relied upon by the Commissioner — I India Law Library Docid # 2423381
(473) M. SRINIVASA RAO Vs. TANGIRALA RAMANA REDDY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 — Appellants found guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying an earlier order in a writ petition — The writ petition had directed the restoration of the 1st respondent's fair price shop authorization and the release of essential commodities to him — The 1st respondent alleged that the appellants failed to comply with this order — The appellate court considered the arguments regarding procedural violati India Law Library Docid # 2423382
(474) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHAVVA RATHNAMMA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Motor Accident Claims — Insurance Company challenged the award passed by the MACT — The primary legal contention raised by the appellant was regarding the planting of the offending vehicle due to discrepancies in the FIR and inquest report — However, the appellate court upheld the MACT's finding that the evidence of the eye-witness within the offending vehicle was credible — The Insurance Company also disputed the assessment of the deceased's income, but India Law Library Docid # 2423383
(475) V BUTCHI BABU Vs. BORRA VEERAMALLA SAI DURGA[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) and 19 — Petition challenged the trial court's order returning a petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction at the stage of registration — The High Court considered Section 19, which specifies the courts to which a divorce petition can be presented — The court emphasized that the trial court erred in raising objections regarding jurisdiction and refusing to number the petition at the initial stage — Citing precedents, the High Court held that obje India Law Library Docid # 2423384
(476) SRI BRAJENDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406 and 420 — Mere breach of promise or contract does not automatically constitute a criminal offense such as cheating or criminal breach of trust — The court emphasizes that to establish guilt for cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise — Similarly, a breach of trust becomes a criminal offense only when there is evidence of fraudulent misappropriation with mens rea (criminal intention), India Law Library Docid # 2423434
(477) M/S. CINNAMARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS Vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 127 — Limited scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the factual findings made by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — The court emphasizes that its jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate — It will not re-appreciate evidence or correct mere errors of fact unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, based on c India Law Library Docid # 2423435
(478) MST. SWAPNA BEGAM Vs. MD. NURUL KHA AND OTHERS[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 372 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 319, 323 and 34 — Voluntarily causing hurt, the production of an injury report is not mandatory if the fact of causing bodily pain or hurt can be established through other evidence — An appeal by a victim challenging the inadequacy of a modified sentence for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the appellate court's judg India Law Library Docid # 2423471
(479) STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. MD. GIYAS UDDIN AND OTHERS[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 378(1)(b) and 377 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 326, 324, 34, 448, 323, 150 and 151 — When sentencing for offences involving causing hurt and house-trespass, courts must consider the gravity of the offence and the impact on the victim and should not show undue leniency by imposing only fines, especially when the trial court had deemed imprisonment appropriate. India Law Library Docid # 2423472
(480) JAGANNATH PRASAD SINHA @ JAGNNATH PRASAD SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[PATNA HIGH COURT] 07-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 3 and 119 — Inconsistent Witness Testimonies — The prosecution's case was weakened by discrepancies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and other prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on the reliability of their accounts. (Related to: PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-6 testimonies) India Law Library Docid # 2423590