ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
    Free Artificial Intelligence Drafting  

    Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator   

Latest Cases

(601) RAJA KATRA PVT LTD. Vs. PRANAY CHAND MAHATAB AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6A(1) Proviso; Order 8 Rule 6A(2); Order 8 Rule 6A(4) — Counter-claim — Maintainability — Pecuniary Jurisdiction — A counter-claim, despite being part of a written statement, is essentially treated as a cross-suit and a plaint for all purposes, and thus must adhere to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court where it is filed — If the value of the counter-claim falls below the lowest pecuniary limit of the court’s jurisdiction on the date of its filing, i
India Law Library Docid # 2427756

(602) ASIM KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. INSTITUTE OF STEEL DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH (INSDAG) AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 – Injunction – Disciplinary Proceedings – Stay of – Principles of granting injunction – A court must consider (i) a prima facie case, (ii) irreparable injury, and (iii) the balance of convenience – Where the fundamental legal validity of an HR Manual, underpinning disciplinary proceedings, is challenged due to alleged lack of proper Executive Council approval and non-registration under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, and
India Law Library Docid # 2427757

(603) SRI PRADIPTA KR. SARKAR Vs. SHEFALI SARKAR AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Execution of Will – Proof – Scribe’s Signature/Date – Discrepancy – When the scribe’s date of signature on a Will appears subsequent to the date of execution, but is attributable to erroneous dating during later notarization where the scribe also acts as an identifier, and where the Will otherwise lacks dates against the testator’s and attesting witnesses’ signatures, such a discrepancy is a plausible explanation and does not
India Law Library Docid # 2427758

(604) OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. JINDAL DRILLING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction — ‘Group of Companies’ Doctrine — Remand of proceedings — Supreme Court’s directives — When an Arbitral Tribunal errs by not deciding an application for discovery of documents before ruling on jurisdiction, and a higher court remands the matter for fresh consideration (including discovery and fresh evidence), the primary objective of such remand is fulfilled once the
India Law Library Docid # 2427759

(605) TUKARAM MORABA JAUNJAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. MANGALA BALKRISHNA PATWARDHAN[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Eviction — Non-user of premises — Scope of High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction — High Court, in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot re-appreciate evidence or correct mere errors of fact; it cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal — Its function is to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within their authority — Concurrent fi
India Law Library Docid # 2427760

(606) LUKKA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. MANDAMALA RAMESH BABU[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — The right to appeal is regulated by law, and a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be admitted if a substantial question of law arises between the parties. A “substantial question of law” materially affects the parties’ rights and is either an open question, not settled by superior courts, or presents difficulty requiring discussion of alternative views. The High Court, in a second
India Law Library Docid # 2427761

(607) SUCHITRA BETIJI AND OTHER Vs. VAGISH KUMAR AND OTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 — Temporary Injunction — Interim Relief — Dispute over property rights and religious practices within a family involving a temple/haveli — Petitioners sought to restrain respondents from consecrating an idol and altering the property’s residential character — Trial Court and Appellate Court denied interim relief — High Court, while acknowledging the
India Law Library Docid # 2427745

(608) DALAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 10-07-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 227 – Public Employment – Contractual Employees – Pay Parity – Regularization of Service – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Whether contractual employees of government department, performing duties identical to permanent employees for over two decades, are entitled to pay scale revisions and other service benefits (increments, GPF, State Insurance) on par with permanent government employees, despite initial contractual terms and specific
India Law Library Docid # 2427746

(609) SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 09-07-2025
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Section 20(4) — Non-discrimination in employment — Employee acquiring disability during service — Entitlement to salary and service benefits — Court held that Section 20(4) protects employees who acquire disability during service irrespective of whether they are partially or completely disabled, ensuring they are shifted to suitable posts or kept on supernumerary posts with same pay and benefits until superannuation or availability of a suitable po
India Law Library Docid # 2428610

(610) ARCHANA GUPTA @ BHARTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 09-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 406, 120B — Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, Criminal Conspiracy — Quashing of FIR — Scope of interference under Section 528 of BNSS is limited — Interference is justified only when no cognizable offense is made out, FIR is mala fide, or lacks legal basis — Petitioner sought to quash FIR related to a property deal dispute alleging non-performance of an agreement to sell and non-disclosure of litigation
India Law Library Docid # 2428611

(611) PREM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 353 — Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty — Evidence — Deterrence and prevention of public servant from discharging official duty — Sufficient material on record to establish guilt.
India Law Library Docid # 2428757

(612) BUDA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 - Revision Petition - Appeal against acquittal - Court should be slow to interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal - Acquittal judgment should only be interfered with if it's based on complete non-consideration of evidence, against law, or misappreciation of evidence. If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be followed
India Law Library Docid # 2428758

(613) JETHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — While the petitioner claimed to have a Will in his favour, this fact was not pleaded in the present writ petition. Leave to amend the petition to include this assertion was not sought. Therefore, the claim based on the Will could not be entertained at this stage.
India Law Library Docid # 2428759

(614) IQBAL SINGH Vs. PANKAJ SHARMA[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 09-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 41 — Arrest without warrant; Section 41A — Notice of appearance before police officer — The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) regarding police arrest powers, especially in cases with punishment less than seven years, are mandatory. Police officers are prohibited from making automatic arrests and must satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest based on Section 41 Cr.P.C. parameters. A checklist specifying sub-clauses
India Law Library Docid # 2427713

(615) SAHIL ZAHOOR CHUNKA Vs. UT OF J&K, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. (HOME) AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 09-07-2025
Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) — Section 8(4) — Preventive Detention — Order of Detention — Validity — Grounds for Detention — Application of Mind — Live Link — The court quashed a detention order under the PSA, finding a lack of “live link” or proximity between the detenu’s last alleged prejudicial act (a 2021 FIR) and the detention order issued over three years later in 2024. The court emphasized that while no rigid timeframe exists, an unexplained and undue delay between the alleged activities
India Law Library Docid # 2427714

(616) STATE OF KERALA Vs. THOMAS MATHEW G.[KERALA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 397, 401 — Revision — Discharge of accused — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 409, 420, 468 read with 34 — Public servant — Alleged conspiracy, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds for a scheme — Special Court discharged 2nd accused on grounds of lack of sanction
India Law Library Docid # 2427715

(617) RAJ LAKSHMI MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHER[PATNA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Quashing of Proceedings — Abuse of Process of Law — The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act if they constitute a gross misuse of legal provisions or an abuse of the process of law. This is particularly relevant when the dispute is primarily civil in nature (related to property or insurance claims) and not genuinely a case of domestic violence as defined by the Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2427716

(618) PRIYANKA PRIYADARSHI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Dowry demand and matrimonial cruelty — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 379 read with Section 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Allegations against husband’s relatives — General and omnibus allegations — Abuse of process of law — When allegations against husband’s relatives (sister-in-law, maternal uncle, maternal aunt) are general or vague, with
India Law Library Docid # 2427717

(619) NITIN RAMESH GARJE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 09-07-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7(a), 12, 13(1), 13(2) — Anticipatory Bail — Rejection — Grounds for — Applicant, an Additional Tehsildar, sought pre-arrest bail for alleged corruption offenses. Allegations include demand and acceptance of bribes through agents (private persons) for official work (mutation entries). Evidence presented: a successful trap operation, CCTV footage showing the Applicant receiving cash from agents, and previous similar cases/inquiries (including
India Law Library Docid # 2427701

(620) M/S. BASSEIN METALS PVT. LTD. Vs. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 09-07-2025
Companies Act, 1956 — Section 433(e) — Winding Up — Inability to Pay Debts — Principles for Winding Up — A company may be wound up if it is unable to pay its debts — The court will not act on a defense that the company has the ability to pay a debt but chooses not to pay it if the debt is undisputed — If the exact amount of an undisputed debt is in question, the court may still order winding up without precise quantification — A winding-up order is appropriate if the company’s defense is not in
India Law Library Docid # 2427702