ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(541) VEENA RANI Vs. SURAJ BANSAL[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Readiness and Willingness — Burden and Standard of Proof — The onus to plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, from the date of the contract up to the date of the decree, lies squarely and mandatorily upon the plaintiff seeking specific performance — This includes demonstrating financial capacity (“readiness”) and the intent to perform (“willingness”) — Merely proving presence at the Sub-Regi
India Law Library Docid # 2425070

(542) PARMA NAND AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. RAJPAL KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Adverse Possession — Burden and Nature of Proof — Essential Elements — The plea of adverse possession is fundamentally fact-based, requiring the party asserting it (typically the defendant) to discharge a heavy burden of proof through proper pleadings and cogent evidence — Mere assertion of long possession is insufficient; the claimant must establish the co-existence of all classic requirements: possession that is adequate in continuity (nec vi), adequate in publicity (nec clam), and adverse to
India Law Library Docid # 2425071

(543) THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. RAM SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Failed Sterilization (Vasectomy) — Proof — The failure of a sterilization operation (vasectomy) does not automatically constitute medical negligence — Given that sterilization methods are not 100% infallible and have a known statistical failure rate due to natural causes, negligence must be specifically proven against the operating surgeon — Mere occurrence of pregnancy post-operation is insufficient to establish liability in tort — The competence of the surgeon,
India Law Library Docid # 2425072

(544) SURAJ BHAN AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 302, 307 — Common Intention — Shared Motive and Concerted Action — Where multiple accused (related as brothers) arrive together armed with different weapons, share a common motive (dispute over loan recovery), and participate in a concerted attack resulting in death and injury, common intention under Section 34 IPC is established for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC — It is not necessary for each accused to inflict a fatal blow; participation in furtherance
India Law Library Docid # 2425073

(545) RAJIV NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must demonstrate that, in all human probability, the act was done by the accused — The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive in nature, and
India Law Library Docid # 2425114

(546) MUKHTIAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 107 & 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — Mens Rea and Positive Act — To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a prima facie case demonstrating, first, that the deceased committed suicide, and second, that the accused abetted this suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC — Abetment requires a clear mens rea (intention) to commit the offence and involves a mental process of instigating the deceased or intentionally
India Law Library Docid # 2425115

(547) SURENDRA AGARWALA Vs. INDIRA GUPTA AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Hindu Law — Mitakshara School — Joint Family Property — Partition Suit — Nucleus — Burden of Proof — Suit filed by a son against his siblings for partition and administration of assets of the deceased father and the Agarwala family — Plaintiff claimed the main business and various other properties/assets were joint family properties acquired from family corpus/funds generated from the main business — Defendants contended that the main business became the sole proprietorship of Defendant No. 2 a
India Law Library Docid # 2425158

(548) MAHESH THAKUR Vs. OM PRAKASH BHARTIA AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 12A — Pre-institution Mediation — Dispensation based on Urgent Interim Relief — Test for Contemplation — The requirement under Section 12A(1) for mandatory pre-institution mediation is exempted if the suit “contemplates any urgent interim relief” — The word “contemplate” means the plaint, documents, and facts must show and indicate the need for urgent interim relief — The test is not whether urgent relief is immediately required at the moment of filing, but
India Law Library Docid # 2425199

(549) TAPAS BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Corroboration — The theory of ‘last seen together’ is a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence — Where the prosecution establishes through credible witnesses (including close relatives of the accused like wife and father-in-law, and independent witnesses like a rickshaw puller) that the accused was last seen with the deceased victim shortly before her death, and the accused fails to provide any explanation
India Law Library Docid # 2425201

(550) ARNAB GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 153A — Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups — Essential Ingredients — Live TV Debate — Panelist’s Comment — To constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC, the act must promote, or attempt to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between two or more distinct religious, racial, language, or regional groups or castes or communities — Where a controversial statement targeting a community is made by a panelist during a live television debate,
India Law Library Docid # 2425202

(551) WASEEM RIAZ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 102 — Seizure by Police — Police officers can seize any property under Section 102 CrPC if it is found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence (not limited to theft).
India Law Library Docid # 2425343

(552) NIRMAL @ MOTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 2(1)(i), Section 7 — “Prohibited Arms” — Proof — To sustain a conviction under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, through cogent scientific evidence (like a ballistic expert report or technical specifications), that the seized weapon falls within the specific definition of “prohibited arms” under Section 2(1)(i) (automatic firearms) — Mere recovery of a firearm (like a country-made revolver) and an armoure
India Law Library Docid # 2425375

(553) DHALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 read with Section 107 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, with a clear mens rea, instigated the deceased or intentionally aided the commission of suicide through a positive act, proximate to the time of suicide, which left the deceased with no other option — Mere allegations of harassment, strained relations, or arguments without direct/indirect incitement are ins
India Law Library Docid # 2425376

(554) RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 08-04-2025
Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 — Rules 3(d), 4(a) — Eligibility for Open Air Camp — Interpretation of ‘Ordinarily’ — The use of the word ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 3, which lists categories of prisoners generally ineligible for open air camp (including convictions under Sec 392-402 IPC), implies that the restriction is not absolute — Eligibility can still be considered based on other factors.
India Law Library Docid # 2425377

(555) MANAGING COMMITTEE, D.A.V. UCHH MADHYAMIK VIDAYALAYA, KESARGANJ, AJMER RAJ. Vs. SAURABH UPADHAYAYA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 — Sections 2(i), 18, 19 — Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 — Rule 39 — Termination of contractual/fixed-term/temporary employees — Applicability of Section 18 — Maintainability of Appeal under Section 19 — The provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, which mandate a reasonable opportunity of being heard and prior approval of the Director of Education for removal, dismissal, or reduction in rank, and
India Law Library Docid # 2425430

(556) DR.FAREED AHMED AND OTHERS Vs. LOCAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Sections 2(n), 4, 6, 9, 13, 18 — Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) — Jurisdiction of Local Complaints Committee (LCC) — The legality and validity of proceedings undertaken by a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) when an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was already constituted by the employer (Bank) — The interpretation of Section 9 regarding when
India Law Library Docid # 2425510

(557) BHUPENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMANAND (DIED) THROUGH LRS (A) SMT. GOMTI SHARMA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c)(iii) — Mesne Profits — Restriction of Three Years from Date of Decree — Rationale and Applicability — The rationale behind restricting the recovery of future mesne profits to a period of three years from the date of the decree (to discourage decree-holders from delaying execution) — The applicability of this three-year restriction even when the decree
India Law Library Docid # 2425511

(558) RAGHURAJ GURJAR ALIAS RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — Section 528 [Corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973] — Quashing of FIR — Scope of Interference — Disputed Questions of Fact — The limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing an FIR, particularly when the grounds for quashing involve disputed questions of fact such as consent, which the High Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into at the initial stage.
India Law Library Docid # 2425512

(559) KAYYAM KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 14-A(2), 18, 18-A — Anticipatory Bail — Bar under Section 18 and 18-A — Exception when No Prima Facie Case is Made Out — The scope of an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicability of the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act against granting anticipatory bail (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) in offences under the Act. The exception to this bar, as laid down in
India Law Library Docid # 2425513

(560) RAMLAL AND OTHERS Vs. DIPALI AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 08-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Absence of Substantial Question of Law or Perversity — The limited jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, particularly when there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court — The necessity for a substantial question of law or a demonstration of perversity in the findings of the courts below for interference
India Law Library Docid # 2425514