(561) SURESH Vs. SIDDARAMA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 06-11-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(1) — Motor Accident Claim — Appeal against dismissal of claim petition — Discrepancies in evidence and unexplained delay in lodging FIR — Claimant met with accident on 22.12.2013, but complaint (Ex.P1) lodged on 15.01.2014, resulting in 24 days inordinate and unexplained delay India Law Library Docid # 2435897
(562) SOMA KUMHAR Vs. NILABAR SINGH MUNDA AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 — Raiyat's Power to Settle Land/Issue Hukumnama — Validity of Sada Hukumnama — A raiyat (tenant/recorded tenant) generally does not have the power to execute a Hukumnama (instrument of settlement) concerning the tenanted property; such power rests with the landlord/Jamindar. A settlement made through a Sada Hukumnama issued by a raiyat India Law Library Docid # 2435538
(563) VINOD JEPH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 06-11-2025 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 38(1) and 38(3) read with Rule 22 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 — Disqualification of elected member — Mandatory procedure for inquiry not followed — Order of disqualification passed without comprehensive inquiry and opportunity for cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and due process — Such disqualification cannot be based on preliminary findings. India Law Library Docid # 2435178
(564) VIRENDRA GUPTA Vs. SMT. LAXMI DEVI[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Sections 23, 23-A, 23-D(1), 23-D(3), and 23-J — Eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide need for non-residential purpose — Summary procedure — Landlord falling under special categories (e.g., widow, divorced wife) — Presumption of bonafide need — Section 23-D(3) provides a presumption of bonafide need in favor of the landlord which must be rebutted by the tenant — Where the landlord falls under a special category like a widow (S. 23-J), the proce India Law Library Docid # 2435670
(565) BABULAL SONI (DIED AND DELETED LRS OF APPELLANT) Vs. SMT. PUNAI BAI AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — First Appeal — Scope of Interference — Appreciation of evidence — When a finding of fact is recorded by the trial court mainly on the appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the trial court’s approach in appraising the evidence is erroneous, contrary to established principles of law, or unreasonable — Appellate court possesses same powers India Law Library Docid # 2435838
(566) JAWAHAR CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Principles of Proof — The conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence must rest upon a complete, cogent, and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis except the India Law Library Docid # 2435839
(567) ASHOK KUMAR UBRANI Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI DEAD LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Where both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of evidence and provisions of law including Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, concurrently hold that the plaintiff is India Law Library Docid # 2435840
(568) SMT. SHARADAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. RANJITH AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 14 — Currency of Driving Licences — Grace Period for Renewal — Applicability — The proviso to unamended Section 14 extended the validity of a driving licence by 30 days from its expiry date for the purpose of renewal, meaning the licence continued to be effective for this period — Where the accident occurred within 8 days of the expiration date (Expired on April 16, 2018; India Law Library Docid # 2435884
(569) G. SREEKANTH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 482 (read with specific sections of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicable to anticipatory bail proceedings in this context, although not explicitly mentioned in the operative section 482 reference) — Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 318(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya India Law Library Docid # 2436204
(570) STATE OF A.P. Vs. DONAMPUDI SAMUEL AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 372, 374(2), 378(4) — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of Appellate Interference — The Appellate Court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence, which is bolstered by the acquittal judgment — Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the findings are perverse (contrary to evidence), the approach is patently illegal leading to miscarriage of India Law Library Docid # 2436205
(571) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. TODETI SUBRAMANYAM AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Motor Accident Claims — Appeal against compensation award — Liability of Insurer — Goods Transport Vehicle carrying passengers — Violation of Policy Conditions — Where Insurer alleges violation of policy conditions (goods vehicle used for passengers) to deny liability, the onus rests on the Insurer to prove such violation — Failure of Insurer to examine the owner of the India Law Library Docid # 2436206
(572) DR. SANJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. KULDEEP GUPTA[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 06-11-2025 Criminal Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction to Quash Proceedings (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing of Complaint and Cognizance Order — Medical Negligence Allegations — A complaint alleging medical negligence and other offenses (Sections 420, 109, 427, 504, 506, 540 RPC) against doctors in a hospital situated in Jammu was filed before a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mendhar (Poonch District) — India Law Library Docid # 2436269
(573) A.VIVEKANANTHAN Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 (Murder) and Section 294(b) (Obscene acts and songs) — Conviction and Sentence — Appeal challenging conviction for rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one month simple imprisonment under Section 294(b) IPC — Case based on motive (husband suspecting wife's fidelity), eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and evidence of India Law Library Docid # 2436665
(574) WASEEM Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNIYAMUTHUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 (Murder) — Conviction challenged in appeal — Evidence rested on circumstantial evidence and testimony of minor child (P.W.3) — Reliability of child witness — P.W.3 (minor daughter) alleged to have seen father throttling mother, but failed to disclose this crucial information immediately to P.W.1 (grandmother) or P.W.2 (aunt) when body was discovered, only India Law Library Docid # 2436666
(575) THANDAVARAYAN (DIED) BY LRS AND OTHERS Vs. PARANIDARAN AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-11-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 58(c) — Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Outright/Conditional Sale — Deed (Ex.B1) executed with condition for reconveyance upon repayment of specified amount within 11 years, and restraint on transferring patta before 11 years' expiry or default, qualifies as a 'mortgage by conditional sale' under Section 58(c) — This interpretation is supported by the India Law Library Docid # 2436668
(576) H.D. LOKESHAIAH DEAD BY LRS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 05-11-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Reference to Civil Court (Section 18) — Enhancement of Compensation — Finality of Lis — Doctrine of Finality (Henderson Doctrine) — Where the original claimant withdrew the entire compensation amount redetermined by the Reference Court and did not appeal within his lifetime, the lis attained finality and the claim for inadequacy of compensation cannot generally be re-agitated by legal representatives through a belated appeal India Law Library Docid # 2435929
(577) ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQF AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 05-11-2025 Waqf Act, 1995 — Section 32(2)(g) — Powers and functions of the Waqf Board — Removal of Mutawallis/Managing Committee members — Only the Karnataka State Board of Waqf (Waqf Board) has the legal authority under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995, to appoint or remove "mutawallis" (which includes members of the Managing India Law Library Docid # 2435875
(578) VEMULA VEERA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF A.P.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-11-2025 Criminal Law — Criminal Appeal — Re-appreciation of Evidence — Appellate Court's Duty — In an appeal against a judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellate Court is duty-bound to re-appreciate the evidence and form its own conclusion on the reliability of the evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2436207
(579) ANBU ILLAM Vs. JOHN BENNET[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 05-11-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96 — Appeal against Common Judgment and Decree — Recovery of Money — Construction Contracts — Cross Suits — Suit by Contractor (O.S. No. 194 of 2009) for recovery of dues for construction work decreed, and Suit by Employer (O.S. No. 130 of 2012) for recovery of alleged excess payment dismissed — Appellate Court upheld Trial Court's findings India Law Library Docid # 2436669
(580) RAVI @ RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 05-11-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Chain of evidence — Requirements for conviction in circumstantial cases (Supreme Court guidelines cited) include establishing a complete chain of events leading solely to the conclusion of guilt; if any doubt creeps in, the benefit must go to the accused; mere strong suspicion is insufficient for proof. India Law Library Docid # 2436670