(701) 63 IDEAS INFOLABS PVT. LTD. (TRADENAME NINJAKART) Vs. M/S MORE TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 22-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Consideration — An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto — The court cannot consider allegations made by the defendant in their written statement or in the application for rejection itself — If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action, it cannot be rejected under this provisi India Law Library Docid # 2425536
(702) ROSHAN LAL BHARDWAJ Vs. ASHOK SUD AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 14(3)(c), Proviso — Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement for re-building/re-construction — Tenant’s right of re-entry — Scope and limitations — Proviso to Section 14(3)(c) grants right of re-entry only upon mutual agreement on new tenancy terms in a re-built building; requires presence of a re-built building and mutual agreement on new terms of tenancy for invocation — No evidence of India Law Library Docid # 2425891
(703) USHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 145(1)(c) — Suspension of Pradhan — Validity — Allegations of illegalities and irregularities — Preliminary inquiry conducted, show cause notice issued, reply found unsatisfactory, leading to suspension — Suspension order issued following India Law Library Docid # 2425892
(704) DHARAM PRAKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. BABA JANG BAHADUR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — Section 24(5) — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope under three Rent Control Acts (including H.P. Rent Act) similar, though wording varies — Wider than Section 115 CPC; not as wide as appellate power — Not a cloak for appeal in disguise — Rehearing of original issues impermissible India Law Library Docid # 2425899
(705) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. USMANKHANJI SAHIDKHANJI DAYMA[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Criminal Appeal (acquittal) — Scope of interference — Appellate Court’s power is coextensive with trial court, can review and reappreciate evidence — No limitation on exercise of such power — Can reach own conclusions on facts and law — Expressions like ‘substantial and compelling reasons’ are ‘flourishes of language’, not curtailing power — However, in acquittal appeals, there is a ‘double presumption’ of innocence in favour of the accused — I India Law Library Docid # 2426101
(706) MALI KAPURJI VAGHAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1(u) — Appeal from Order — Nature of — Appeal against judgment and decree of appellate court remanding matter to trial court after joining State as party — Scope of appellate review under Order 43 Rule 1(u) involves examining whether the impugned order is erroneous, perverse, or arbitrary and if an error of law was committed in remanding the matter for fresh consideration India Law Library Docid # 2426102
(707) RAVINDRA NATUBHAI PATEL Vs. SATISHBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 — Section 31(3) & (7) — Election disputes — Panchayat elections — Challenge to election result — Recounting of votes — Statutory framework mandates “inquiry” under Section 31(3) before ordering recount under Section 31(7)(b) — Tribunal’s power to scrutinize and compute votes under Section 31(7)(b) is dependent upon satisfactory inquiry and sufficient material/evidence presented — Bare allegations in election petition or small margin of victory India Law Library Docid # 2426103
(708) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHANA ARJAN VEDVA VAGHARI AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(1)(3) — Appeal against acquittal — Principles governing interference — Appellate Court has full power to review evidence but should be reluctant to interfere with acquittal unless conclusions are palpably wrong, based on erroneous law, or lead to grave injustice — Interference is not justified if trial court’s view of evidence is possible, even if appellate court might take a different view India Law Library Docid # 2426104
(709) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BHUPEN BHUYAN AND ANOTHER[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeals — Challenge to Judgment and Award — Re-assessment of compensation under Section 166 where claim was converted from Section 166 to Section 163A — Appellant Insurer challenged compensation under various heads including physical pain, earning capacity, disability, and legal representatives’ ability to claim under Section 163A India Law Library Docid # 2426203
(710) SHANKAR LAL Vs. JUGAL KISHORE AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 22-04-2025 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 15(3) — Procedure for eviction of tenant — Filing of reply, affidavits, and documents — Mandatory vs. Directory — The provision requiring the filing of affidavits and documents along with the reply under Section 15(3) of the Act is directory, not mandatory — This means that while it is generally expected to be followed, strict adherence is not always required, India Law Library Docid # 2427488
(711) KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 397 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope against Conviction — Discussion on the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under S. 397 Cr.P.C. when examining concurrent findings of conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court — The revisional court's role is primarily confined to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of the findings, sentence, or order and the regularity of the proceedings of the lower courts — Th India Law Library Docid # 2424863
(712) RAMESH SUNEJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Railways Act, 1989 — Ss. 123(c), 124-A — Untoward Incident — Accidental Fall from Train vs. Attempt to Alight — Bona Fide Passenger — Consideration of whether a fall from a moving train resulting in injury to a bona fide passenger constitutes an “untoward incident” under S. 123(c) liable for compensation under S. 124-A. Analysis contrasting the claimant’s consistent account of falling due to a push/jostling in an overcrowded compartment near a station with the Railways’ defence that it was an at India Law Library Docid # 2424864
(713) DR. ABHISHEK AGGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 311 — Power to Summon Material Witness or Recall/Re-examine — Scope and Principles — The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide but must be exercised judiciously, with caution and circumspection, only to meet the ends of justice. Its objective is to discover the truth or obtain proper proof of facts essential for a just decision, not to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case resulting in prejudice to the accused or as an abuse of process. The c India Law Library Docid # 2425047
(714) AMARJIT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Just Compensation — Assessment — Overall Award vs. Component-wise Errors — While assessing appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellate court must consider the overall ‘justness’ of the compensation awarded — Even if the Tribunal commits errors in calculating individual components enhancement is not warranted if the total compensation awarded is already adequate, just, or even excessive when view India Law Library Docid # 2425081
(715) NEERAJ KUMAR Vs. NARINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 and 147 — Compounding of Offence — At Revisional Stage — Effect of Settlement and Payment — An offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, being primarily compensatory in nature with the punitive element aimed at enforcing the compensatory aspect, is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act — Where the parties, during the pendency of a criminal revision petition challenging concurrent conviction under Section 138, arrive at a settlement and India Law Library Docid # 2425082
(716) SARABJIT SINGH @ JATT @ AMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Bail in Commercial Quantity Case — Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration — Prolonged pre-trial incarceration generally militates against the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution — In such circumstances, the conditional liberty of the accused may override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS India Law Library Docid # 2425083
(717) M/S LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S KRISTAN AUTO[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 11 Rules 1(1), 1(7)(c)(i), 1(10) — Disclosure of Documents — Use Solely for Cross-Examination — Requirement of Leave — Under the stringent disclosure regime mandated by Order 11 CPC for Commercial Courts, a defendant is required by Rule 1(1) to file a list and photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control, or custody pertaining to the suit along with the written statement or counterclaim — While Order 11 Rule India Law Library Docid # 2425118
(718) KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHBIR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 — Section 5(b) — ‘Waste Land’ — Inclusion of ‘Sailab’ Land — Effect of Reclamation by Vendee — Land consistently recorded in revenue records as ‘Sailab’ (flooded or kept moist by river action), even if classified as cultivable waste land under administrative or legal frameworks (including interpretations based on the Punjab Land Record Manual, National Wasteland Development Board definitions, and Punjab Land Revenue Act provisions), falls within the ambit of the Expl India Law Library Docid # 2425119
(719) SRI SRI ISWAR RAMESWARSHIB THAKUR Vs. NIRMAL KANTI GANGULY AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 114 Ill.(g) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O. III Rr. 1, 2 — Evidence by Power of Attorney (POA) Holder — Scope and Admissibility — Adverse Inference — A POA holder is empowered to 'act' on behalf of the principal, which includes acts done in exercise of the power granted, but does not extend to deposing in place of the principal on matters within the principal's exclusive personal knowledge — A POA holder cannot testify about the principal's state of mind, or when and ho India Law Library Docid # 2425163
(720) NISHA KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 21-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 190(1)(b) — Scope of Magistrate’s Power — Magistrate taking cognizance based on a police report is not bound by the IO’s opinion or the sections mentioned in the chargesheet — The Magistrate can independently apply mind to the material filed with the report and take cognizance of any offence(s) disclosed therein against any person(s) indicated, even if not charge-sheeted or India Law Library Docid # 2425276