ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(61) DAIZY KUMAR @ VISHAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A and 306 — Cruelty and Abetment to Suicide — To establish offences under Sections 498A and 306, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the acts constituting cruelty and a proximate nexus between the accused's actions and the deceased's suicide, while considering the admissibility and weight of witness testimonies and statutory presumptions — Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC dismissed, upholding the trial court'
India Law Library Docid # 2423800

(62) ASHA CHAUHAN Vs. AMIT KASHYAP AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — The expression “consequential benefits” in a court order for retrospective promotion typically encompasses quantifiable financial benefits and the right to be considered for further promotion based on the new seniority, but does not automatically include subsequent promotions to higher grades not specifically directed by the court — Contempt petition dismissed as the retrospective promotion and financial benefits ordered by the court were granted; “consequential be
India Law Library Docid # 2423801

(63) SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. THE H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS LTD. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Electricity Law — An electricity board has the primary responsibility to maintain HT lines properly and ensure they do not pose a hazard to human life, and the court can direct the board to pay compensation for death caused by electrocution due to its acts of omission — Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the electricity board to pay compensation for the electrocution death of the petitioner's son due to low-hanging HT lines, attributing the incident to the board's omission in maintain
India Law Library Docid # 2423802

(64) ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Service Law — Recovery of Excess Payment — Retired Employee — Group-D Employee — Effect of Undertaking/Affidavit — Where a retired Group-D employee challenges the recovery of excess payment made to him post-retirement during the release of arrears of gratuity and leave encashment, the permissibility of such recovery hinges significantly on whether the employee had furnished an undertaking to refund any such excess payment.
India Law Library Docid # 2423899

(65) GURWINDER SINGH Vs. SHARANJIT KAUR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance — Effect of Permanent Alimony — Held, the object of Section 125 is distinct, aiming at social justice and preventing vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy for sustenance — The mere fact that the respondent-wife has received a lump sum amount as permanent alimony does not automatically disentitle her from claiming or receiving monthly maintenance under Section
India Law Library Docid # 2423955

(66) YASH DEV SINGH SEJWAL Vs. STATE AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 198 — Prosecution for Offences Against Marriage (Chapter XX IPC) — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person — Cognizance of offences under Chapter XX IPC (including Sections 494/495 IPC) can only be taken upon a complaint made by a “person aggrieved” by the offence, subject to specific exceptions enumerated in the proviso to S. 198(1) — Where the husband is the aggrieved person, a complaint filed by his father holding a Power of
India Law Library Docid # 2423973

(67) SALEEM Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 — Rules 1178, 1197, 1200 and 1224(iii) — Furlough — Eligibility — Effect of Past Parole Abscondence/Jump — Subsequent Good Conduct — Effect of Warning — While Rule 1224(iii) stipulates ineligibility for furlough for prisoners who absconded during parole/furlough, this bar is not absolute and must be considered contextually — Where a significant period has elapsed since the petitioner jumped emergency parole and was rearrested, and the petitioner has subsequently maintain
India Law Library Docid # 2423974

(68) D K SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Sanction for Prosecution — Competent Authority — Jurisdictional Prerequisite — Grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act by an authority competent to remove the public servant from office is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite — Sanction granted by an authority lacking such competence is invalid ab initio, rendering the entire trial and subsequent conviction void for want of jurisdiction — The question of competence
India Law Library Docid # 2423976

(69) PITHAMPUR AUDYOGIK SANGTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 20-03-2025
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — Sections 3 & 5 — Revision of Minimum Wages — Uniformity vs. Locality-wise Differentiation — While Section 3(3)(a)(iv) permits consideration of different localities while fixing/revising minimum wages, the Act does not mandate the appropriate government to invariably fix different minimum wage rates for different localities within the State — A uniform revision applicable across the State, based on recommendations of the duly constituted Advisory Board considering releva
India Law Library Docid # 2424122

(70) KRISHNA @ KINNA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32(1) — Dying Declaration — Inconsistency and Reliability — Where two dying declarations are recorded, one (Dehatinalishi Ex.P-15) implicating the husband (A1) and brother-in-law (A2) stating the deceased poured kerosene on herself following harassment over a monetary demand and A1 lit the fire, while the second (Ex.P-8 recorded by Executive Magistrate) attributes the burn injury to the deceased's 'own fault' following a quarrel over A1's alcoholism and exonerates bo
India Law Library Docid # 2424123

(71) MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 20-03-2025
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 10-A — Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 [referencing M.P. PDS (Control) Order, 2009, Clause 11.5 as interpreted in precedent] — FIR Registration — Authority — Collector's Recommendation — An FIR for offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with the relevant Control Order, which are cognizable under Section 10-A of the Act, can be registered by the police based on a complaint or information received from comp
India Law Library Docid # 2424124

(72) M/S INANI MARBLES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. SANTOSH DEVI AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 20-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(34), Section 147 — ‘Public Place’ — Accident within Factory Premises — Insurance Liability — A place within a factory premise, even if entry is generally restricted, qualifies as a ‘public place’ under Section 2(34) if access, although limited, is granted to a certain class of public or specific individuals for particular purposes (like employees, vehicle crews, workers, or even specific vehicles like a JCB deployed for work) — Where an accident involving a v
India Law Library Docid # 2424158

(73) MOHAMMAD JUNAID RAINA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K THROUGH POLICE[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 19-03-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Bail — A High Court can consider granting bail on humanitarian grounds, such as serious illness of a close family member requiring the convict’s presence, even when there are statutory restrictions on bail, particularly when the appeal is pending and likely to take time — The High Court allowed interim applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to a convict under the NDPS Act, primarily on humanitarian grounds due
India Law Library Docid # 2423787

(74) SHIV NAND Vs. LEELA DEVI AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 26 Rule 9 — H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 — A plaintiff alleging encroachment should typically seek demarcation of the land through the Revenue Act before filing a suit for possession and cannot use an application for a Local Commissioner to collect evidence that could have been obtained earlier — Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner in an encroachment suit was dismissed, as the petitioner had not sought dem
India Law Library Docid # 2423803

(75) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. GIAN KAUR[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 — Sections 13-B, 18-A(2) & Schedule II — Leave to Contest — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Application for leave to contest eviction petition filed by NRI landlord under S.13-B must be filed within 15 days of service as per S.18-A(2) read with Schedule II — Rent Controller, being a creature of statute, has no inherent power and no specific power is conferred by the Act to condone delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 — Application filed b
India Law Library Docid # 2423951

(76) GURDEV SINGH Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 19(b) — Subsequent Purchaser — Bonafide Purchase Without Notice — Burden of Proof — Held, in a suit for specific performance, the burden lies heavily upon the subsequent purchaser to plead and prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, having paid money in good faith without notice of the prior agreement to sell — Mere assertion of purchase from a different village is insufficient; failure to discharge this burden renders the subsequent
India Law Library Docid # 2423952

(77) BHAWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018 (Haryana Act No. 26 of 2022) — Constitutionality — Retrospective Operation — Vested Rights — Held, the Amendment Act of 2022, which retrospectively amends the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (Act No. 1 of 2011) w.e.f. 9.6.2011, so as to exclude lands owned by or vested in Panchayats, Municipalities, Government Departments, Boards
India Law Library Docid # 2423953

(78) SANDEEP SINGH Vs. GURBINDER SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Right Against Self-Incrimination — ‘Person Accused of an Offence’ — Pre-Summoning Stage in Complaint Case — Held, the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) is available only to a person formally “accused of an offence” — This status is typically acquired when an FIR is lodged naming the person, a complaint naming the person is filed before a Magistrate followed by issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., or formal accusation other
India Law Library Docid # 2423954

(79) U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KASIM AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Negligence — Head-on Collision — Determination of Liability — Eyewitness Testimony vs. Driver's Defence — In determining negligence in a motor accident claim arising from a head-on collision between a car and a bus, the consistent and credible testimony of injured eyewitnesses travelling in the car, stating that the bus came from the opposite direction at high speed, on the wrong side, and without blowing horn, is sufficient to establish the sole negligence of the bus
India Law Library Docid # 2423975

(80) KAVITA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-03-2025
Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2), 124A — “Untoward Incident” — Accidental Falling from Train — Interpretation of Evidence — Where a person is found dead near railway tracks with the body severely mutilated and parts scattered, such condition is strongly indicative of the deceased having accidentally fallen from a running train and subsequently being run over, thereby constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of
India Law Library Docid # 2423977