(581) M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED Vs. OZONE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Enquiry — Non-Signatory Party — The scope of enquiry by the Court under Section 11 is confined primarily to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties sought to be referred — While considering reference of a non-signatory based on doctrines like ‘Group of Companies’, the Court undertakes only a minimal, prima facie review without detailed analysis — A comprehe India Law Library Docid # 2424943
(582) RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS RAKESH SINGLA Vs. SATISH KUMAR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6A and Order 6 Rule 17 — Counterclaim — Amendment of Written Statement — Time Limit for Filing Counterclaim — Stage after Closure of Evidence — An application seeking amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate a counterclaim, when filed after the framing of issues and after the conclusion of evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, when the case is posted for rebuttal evidence or arguments, is impermissible — Rel India Law Library Docid # 2425062
(583) KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. BHEERO @ PRAKASH KAUR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Due Execution and Attestation — To prove the due execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act, the propounder must satisfy the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examining at least one attesting witness, if available — The attesting witness must testify not only to the testator’s signature/mark but also that the testator signed/marked in their presence and that they, along with the India Law Library Docid # 2425063
(584) TARA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 108 — Burden of Proof — Person not heard of for seven years — Where the prosecution case rests on the premise that a person (victim of forgery) has not been heard of for over seven years, establishing this fact shifts the burden under Section 108 of the Evidence Act onto the accused who assert that the person was alive during the relevant period — The failure of the accused to discharge this burden by leading cogent evidence, especially when they had the opportunity, India Law Library Docid # 2425064
(585) LEKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. AMI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Scope and Limitations — Error Apparent on Face of Record — The jurisdiction to review a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is circumscribed and limited — It cannot be invoked to rehear the matter on merits or to correct an erroneous decision, which is the domain of an appeal — Review is permissible only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an error that is self-evident and does not require elaborate a India Law Library Docid # 2425065
(586) SUPARNA BHALLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 [Cr.P.C., 1973, Section 482] — Initial Stage — FIR Not Encyclopedia — The First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case; its purpose is limited to setting the criminal law in motion — The absence of specific, detailed allegations against an accused in the FIR, or the fact that an accused is not named therein, is not a ground for quashing the FIR at the India Law Library Docid # 2425066
(587) DINESH DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 467, 468, 471 — Forgery of Valuable Security, Forgery for Cheating, Using Forged Document — Proof — Expert Evidence — Conviction under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC is sustainable where the prosecution proves through conclusive expert evidence (handwriting analysis) that the accused (a bank employee) was involved in forging documents related to the encashment of a high-value cheque via a fictitious bank account, and used such forged documents as genuine for the purpo India Law Library Docid # 2425203
(588) IBRAHIM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Law — Honour Killing — Motive — Disapproval of a love affair between the accused’s daughter/sister and the deceased, leading to diminishment of family reputation, can constitute a strong motive for committing murder (honour killing). India Law Library Docid # 2425344
(589) KAILASH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SITAPUR AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 07-04-2025 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — Section 48 (as amended, including Explanation 3) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of Power — Re-appreciation of Evidence — Section 48 of the Act vests the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) with very wide revisional powers to examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority — This power is exercised to satisfy himself as to the regularity of proceedings or the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order India Law Library Docid # 2425345
(590) RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Effect of Acquittal in Criminal Case — Suitability for Teacher Post — Denial of appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher solely on the ground of pendency/registration of a criminal case (involving IPC Sections 199, 200, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420) is unsustainable after the candidate has been acquitted of all charges by a competent criminal court. India Law Library Docid # 2425370
(591) SUNITA SIGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 28(13) vs. Section 58 — Jurisdiction — Disqualification of Committee Member — The power to adjudicate upon the question of whether a member of the committee has incurred any disqualification mentioned under Section 28 or the rules/bye-laws vests specifically with the Registrar under Section 28(13) — This is distinct from the jurisdiction under Section 58 which deals with arbitration of disputes touching the constitution, management, or busines India Law Library Docid # 2425371
(592) MANISH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 — Rules 4.4, 4.9 — Opening/Continuance of History Sheet — Justification — Opening or continuing a history sheet requires justification based on criteria like being a habitual offender (as defined), having consecutive convictions, or involvement in numerous cases indicating habitual criminality — The decision is subject to judicial scrutiny based on uniform criteria evolved through India Law Library Docid # 2425372
(593) NAVNEET Vs. LRS OF SMT. PREM DEVI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 391 — Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage — Scope and Conditions — An appellate court has the discretion under Section 391 CrPC to allow additional evidence if it deems necessary for the just decision of the case, provided reasons are recorded — This power should be exercised cautiously, not to fill lacunae in the prosecution case or merely for the asking, but where evidence is crucial to prevent miscarriage of justice and could not have been adduced a India Law Library Docid # 2425373
(594) OM PRAKASH Vs. BHANWARLAL AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Stamp Act (Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998) — Section 33, 35, 39 — Duty to Impound Insufficiently Stamped Documents — When an instrument chargeable with stamp duty but insufficiently stamped is produced before a court, the court is mandatorily required (‘shall’) under Section 33 to impound it — The court cannot reject an application to take such document on record (filed under O.VII R.14(3) or O.XIII R.1 CPC) merely on the ground of insufficient stamping. India Law Library Docid # 2425374
(595) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 07-04-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 245C(1) and Section 245H — Settlement of Cases — Immunity from Prosecution and Penalty — Pre-requisites — Full and True Disclosure and Cooperation — For the Income Tax Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty under Section 245H, three requirements must be met: (i) full and true disclosure of the income not disclosed to the Assessing Officer; (ii) the manner in which such income was derived; and (iii) that the applicant India Law Library Docid # 2425429
(596) SADARAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528) — Quashing of FIR — NDPS Act — Negative FSL Report — Where the FSL report pertaining to the substance seized under the NDPS Act conclusively finds that the sample does not contain any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the very basis of the FIR is negated — Continuance of criminal proceedings in such a case would be an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the FIR and India Law Library Docid # 2425410
(597) SUNITA GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 07-04-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Middle School Teacher — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of NCTE Regulations, 2014 — Requirement of 50% marks in Bachelor’s and/or Master’s Degree for B.Ed. — The interpretation of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulation, 2014, regarding the eligibility criterion of securing 50% marks for admission to a B.Ed. program, specifically whether this requirement can be met by securing 50% marks in either the Bachelor’s India Law Library Docid # 2425509
(598) SUSHEEL KUMAR RANA AND OTHERS Vs. U.T. OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Powers of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Abuse of process of law — Test for quashing at initial stage — Whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence — Consideration of special features — Where existence of mens rea is rendered absurd or inherently improbable by factual position, prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process — When profile of allegations renders existence of mens rea patently India Law Library Docid # 2425788
(599) STANZIN LAKPA Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-04-2025 Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Compromise — Non-compoundable offences — Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) is distinct from power to compound under Section 320 CrPC — While sparingly exercised, it can extend to non-compoundable offences where parties have settled — Guiding factors are securing ends of justice or preventing abuse of process — Not applicable to heinous/serious offences of mental depravity, special statutes, or public servant offences due India Law Library Docid # 2425789
(600) ABDUL HAMID Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ANOTHER[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 07-04-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 and 37 — Bail — Intermediate Quantity — Recovery from individual possession — Rigours of Section 37 — Allegations of recovery of heroin from personal search of applicant (104.89 gms) and co-accused (106.86 gms) while traveling together in a vehicle — Total quantity alleged to be commercial — Contention that individual quantity is intermediate and Section 37 not applicable — Applicant in custody since arrest, investigat India Law Library Docid # 2425790