(541) SRI. RAOJI Vs. SMT. K.M. SAVITHRIDEVI AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 101 — The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order dismissing his application — The respondents had filed a suit for partition in 1992, which was decreed in 1995 —Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies — The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the legislative intent of Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 and that his rights India Law Library Docid # 2417863
(542) SATISH GUPTA Vs. RACHNA GUPTA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Joint Family Property — The plaintiff claims to be the lawful owner of a shop and godown in New Delhi and seeks to restrain the defendants from entering the property —The main issue is whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property, given the defendants’ claim of joint ownership based on a Will — The plaintiff argues that he is in settled possession of the property and that mere concealment of facts should not dismiss the suit — The defendants argue that the India Law Library Docid # 2418067
(543) VIP PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD Vs. RHYDBURG PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 12 and Order 7 Rule 11 — Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant after withdrawing a previous counterclaim without permission to refile —Whether the current suit is barred under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 12 of the CPC due to the previous withdrawal — The plaintiff argued that the current suit includes comprehensive claims not covered in the previous counterclaim and is based on a continuing cause of action —The defendant contended that the current India Law Library Docid # 2418068
(544) ANIL JOGINDER SACHDEV AND ANOTHER Vs. BALASAHEB HIRALAL ZAD AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 —Transfer of Property, 1882 — Section 108(o) — The case involves a dispute over a shop in Pune — The plaintiffs (landlords) sought eviction of the defendants (tenants) due to arrears of rent, destruction/injury to the premises, and erection of permanent structures without consent — The main issues were whether the defendants defaulted on rent payments, caused damage to the premises, and erected permanent structures without permission India Law Library Docid # 2417916
(545) GORAKH RAMBHAU CHOTHVE AND ANOTHER Vs. VILAS EKNATH KADAM AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 — Section 12(3)(b) — The case involves a dispute over the possession of a rented property in Nashik — The plaintiffs claimed the defendants defaulted on rent and sublet the property without permission — The main issues were whether the defendants defaulted on rent and whether the subletting was unauthorized — The petitioners argued that the demand notice was not properly served and that the rent was paid up to January 1983 — They als India Law Library Docid # 2417917
(546) DIGAMBAR SHIVAJI IGAVE AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 467, 468 and 471 — The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection of discharge applications by the Special Judge in a recruitment scam for Jail Sepoy posts in Maharashtra —Whether the petitioners were part of a criminal conspiracy to manipulate the selection process for Jail Sepoy posts —Petitioners argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy or pecuniary advantage, and their actions were in the bona fide performance of duties —The State India Law Library Docid # 2417921
(547) GLOBAL ZONE SANITORY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. ADVENT INFRACON[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of an arbitrator — Whether the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the court was appropriate given the arbitration agreement's provision for a three-member tribunal — The petitioner argued that the appointment of a sole arbitrator was contrary to the arbitration agreement and insisted on a three-member tribunal — The respondent initially agreed to a sole arbitrator appointed by the court but later argued for a three-member trib India Law Library Docid # 2417923
(548) BHERSIYA Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 304 Part II and 325 — The appellant was convicted for causing the death by pelting stones during a money dispute —Whether the appellant's actions constituted an offense under Section 304 Part II of IPC or if he acted in self-defense —The appellant argued that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and tried to snatch money from him, suggesting the offense should be under Section 325 of IPC —The State argued that the appellant had knowledge that his acti India Law Library Docid # 2418018
(549) BABURAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15, 25 and 29 — Recovery of 470 kg of poppy straw — Bail — The main issue is whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering the period of incarceration and the legal provisions under the NDPS Act —The applicant's counsel argues for bail based on the long period of incarceration and cites Supreme Court decisions where bail was granted in similar circumstances —The respondent's counsel opposes the bail, citing previous d India Law Library Docid # 2418019
(550) DR. LAKSHMI NARAYAN ARYA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Jiwaji University Act, 1963 — M.P. Vishwavidyalala Adhiniyam, 1973 — Sections 34 and 36 — Post of Director, Physical Education — The petitioner is challenging an advertisement for the post of Director, Physical Education, which was declared as a non-teaching post —Whether the post of Director, Physical Education should be classified as a teaching or non-teaching post —The petitioner argues that the post should be a teaching post based on qualifications and previous decisions by the Coordination India Law Library Docid # 2418020
(551) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PALLABH BHOWMICK AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 417 and 420 — Respondent was defrauded of Rs. 94,204.80 through unauthorized transactions after downloading a mobile app, believing it was for a refund from Louis Philippe —Whether the State Bank of India (SBI) is liable to compensate respondent for the fraudulent transactions — Respondent argued that he did not share any sensitive information and that the fraud occurred due to a breach in Louis Philippe's customer database — SBI contended that the transactions India Law Library Docid # 2418308
(552) SABINA YASMIN AND OTHERS Vs. MOINUL HOQUE AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — Section 173 — The case involves a fatal accident on 18-11-2009, where a truck hit the claimant's husband, resulting in his death — The claimant sought compensation for the loss —The main issues were whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving, the insurance status of the vehicle, the appropriate compensation amount, and the claimant's entitlement to relief —The petitioner argued that the deceased earned Rs. 6,000 per month and the compensation should refl India Law Library Docid # 2418309
(553) IMTIYAZ AHMAD DAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 — Articles 168A and 168D — Pension and Gratuity — The court examined whether an employee against whom criminal proceedings are pending can be denied final pension and gratuity but be granted provisional pension under Articles 168-A and 168-D — It was held that under Article 168-D, an employee facing pending judicial (including criminal) proceedings at the time of retirement is entitled to provisional pension, but the final settlement of India Law Library Docid # 2417651
(554) ALI MOHAMMAD GANAI Vs. J&K INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Service Law — Date of Birth Determination in Government Service — The court clarified that in cases where an employee's date of birth is disputed, the initial burden lies with the employee to prove their date of birth — If the employee fails to provide satisfactory proof, the employer may rely on alternative methods such as medical examination or other credible documents — The court emphasized that once a date of birth is determined by a competent authority (e.g., a Medical Board), it should gen India Law Library Docid # 2417652
(555) MUBASHIR MAJEED DAR Vs. GOVT. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Detention — Petitioner challenged his preventive detention under the Public Safety Act and argued that the detention order was without proper application of mind, the grounds were vague, legal safeguards were not followed, and a previous similar order was revoked without fresh allegations — The court, however, dismissed the petition, finding that the grounds of detention were not identical to the previous order, the respondents had the right to revoke India Law Library Docid # 2417653
(556) BILAL AHMAD LONE Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 13-09-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 364, 201, 436 and 182 — Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 7 and 25 — Bail — The High Court granted bail to an approver in a case related to a fake encounter — The court held that Section 306(4)(b) of the CrPC, which requires an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial, cannot be interpreted in a manner that violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India — The court found that there were exceptional circumstances in the case, including India Law Library Docid # 2417654
(557) DR. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17A — The petitioner is accused of demanding a bribe related to the procurement of PPE kits during the COVID-19 pandemic — An FIR was registered based on an audio recording of the demand —Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed due to lack of approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act — Petitioner argues that the investigation was conducted without the necessary approval under Section 17A, making it void — The India Law Library Docid # 2418357
(558) SENTINEL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ATUL DHIRAJLAL AMIN VIRAL ATULBHAI AMIN[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 The dispute centers around the irrevocable Power of Attorney and agreements to sell agricultural land, which were supposed to be converted to non-agricultural land — The main issues include the validity of the Power of Attorney, the applicability of the Gujarat Tenancy Act, and whether the agreements to sell were enforceable — The petitioner argued that the Power of Attorney was irrevocable and coupled with interest, making it legally binding — They also contended that the agreements were valid India Law Library Docid # 2418705
(559) GANGARAMBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 — Sections 149(3) and115H(8) — The petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondent authorities regarding alleged irregularities in the recruitment process at Patan Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd —The main issue was whether the respondents failed to take appropriate action against the accused involved in cheating, misappropriation, forgery, and illegal recruitment — The petitioner argued that the respondents, being government servants, did not initiate any a India Law Library Docid # 2418727
(560) J SANTHAKUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. MOHANAN AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 13-09-2024 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 — The case involves a suit for partition of property originally belonging to ‘K’ — The plaintiffs and defendants are his descendants, disputing the division of the property — Whether the property is coparcenary or individual, legitimacy of the plaintiffs as children of the first defendant, and the impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — The property lost its coparcenary character upon partition, the plaintiffs are not legitimate children, and India Law Library Docid # 2419069