ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(761) SHRI NEERAJ BHATIA Vs. SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR BHATIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — The court held that if a plaint does not disclose any cause of action, it can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — The court rejected the Appellant's suit for partition as it was based on false averments and did not disclose any cause of action.

B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1 — Injunction against Appellant — The court granted an injunction in favor of the Respondents, directing the Appellant t
India Law Library Docid # 2416167

(762) HEMANI MALHOTRA Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Delhi Higher Judicial Service — Appointment and seniority of judicial officers — The High Court dismissed a petition filed by a judicial officer, who sought to challenge her seniority in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) — The court held that the seniority of 17 officers who were appointed on an ad hoc basis against ex-cadre posts meant for Fast Track Courts in DHJS, and who joined in January 2006, stood finalised as per the seniority list dated 18.11.2009 and the modified seniority list
India Law Library Docid # 2416168

(763) GAURAV DHAWAN Vs. TRANSASIA PRIVATE CAPITAL LIMITED[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Sections 13 and 44A — Enforcement of a foreign judgment — The High Court has dismissed an appeal against an order enforcing a foreign judgment from the UK — The appellant had challenged the jurisdiction of the UK court, arguing that the dispute had no connection with the UK and that the judgment was an ex parte one — However, the court found that appellant had provided a registered address in the UK and was duly served at that address in accordance with Section
India Law Library Docid # 2416169

(764) SHYAM LAL BANSAL Vs. NIRMAL BANSAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Partition Suit — Joint Proprty — Grant of Preliminary Decree — The property was jointly acquired by appellant and his brother ‘K’ (deceased) — ‘K’ bequeathed his share (40%) in the property to his daughter-in-law ‘N’ and grandson ‘G’ (respondents) through a Will — DDA allowed mutation of the property in favor of the respondents — The respondents filed a suit seeking partition and permanent injunction, which the lower court granted — The appellant challenged the reliance on the Will (since it was
India Law Library Docid # 2416170

(765) J DUNCAN HEALTHCARE PVT LTD. Vs. CENTRAL MEDICAL SERVICES SOCIETY[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Blacklisting of Healthcare Company — The High Court dismissed a petition filed by petitoner against the respondent regarding its blacklisting for two years — The court found that the petitioner had submitted forged performance bank guarantees (PBGs) and had breached its contractual obligations by failing to deliver goods on time — The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that it was unaware of the forgery and that the blacklisting was arbitrary — The court noted that the petitioner had not
India Law Library Docid # 2416171

(766) SATHISH BABU SANA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 50(2) — Constitutional validity of Section 50(2) and their summoning as accused in a money laundering case — The court held that the PMLA proceedings and the scheduled offences are separate and distinct, and the two cannot be considered as joint trials — The court also noted that the petitioners had changed their statements during the investigation, and their attempts to project illicit payments as genuine investment/business deals without any c
India Law Library Docid # 2416172

(767) BITLA JAYAPRAKASH Vs. AMRUTHAM PUSHPA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Suit for specific performance of a contract — Defendant filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application to send a suspected fake Agreement of Sale for expert verification — The court dismissed the application for being filed late, but the defendant argued timely submission after evidence conclusion and the need to prove their case — The plaintiff argued the application was a cover-up for a ten-year-old written statement — Upon review, the court found no prejud
India Law Library Docid # 2416282

(768) N. NEERAJA Vs. M.D. A.P.S.R.T.C. HYD AND OTHERS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11A — Adjudication of disputes through conciliation or arbitration — Petitioner, a conductor with the respondent corporation, was accused of committing cash and ticket irregularities during her duty — She was placed under put-off duty, given an explanation opportunity, and an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Manager (Enquiries) — The petitioner contended that she was deprived of the opportunity to prove her case as the enquiry officer did not provide
India Law Library Docid # 2416283

(769) INAYATHULLA N Vs. STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR BENGALURU CEN CRIME POLICE STATION AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67B — The petitioner was accused of viewing child pornography on his mobile for about 50 minutes, leading to a complaint and registration of a crime under Section 67B of the IT Act — Whether viewing child pornography constitutes an offence under Section 67B of the IT Act and whether the right to privacy is violated — The petitioner argued that merely viewing child pornography does not attract Section 67B of the IT Act and that it is an invasion of his r
India Law Library Docid # 2416365

(770) SRI DUNDAPPA Vs. SHRI BASAPPA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 19-07-2024
Adverse Possession — The plaintiff claims ownership of a property purchased by his father in 1947 — The property was allegedly reduced in size by the defendants without proper notice — Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation and whether he has perfected his title by adverse possession — The plaintiff argues that he has been in possession of the property for over 50 years and that the reduction in property size was done without his knowledge — The defendants claim that only 6 acres w
India Law Library Docid # 2416369

(771) SRI BABAGOUDA LAKHAMGOUDA PATIL AND OTHERS Vs. SMT DUNDAWWA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 19-07-2024
Agreement to Sell — In a sale agreement case from 1985, the agreement holder sought specific performance and possession, claiming substantial payment and readiness to complete the sale, supported by a scientific report on thumb impressions — The owners argued fabrication, illiteracy, undue influence, and a delayed suit — The court partly allowed the appeal, ordering a refund of earnest money with interest but denying specific performance due to suspicious circumstances and undue influence, apply
India Law Library Docid # 2416386

(772) MRS. ZAHEDA INAMDHAR Vs. DR. FATIMA HASSINA SAYEEDHA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The petitioner and respondent had a transaction leading to a dishonored cheque — The petitioner sought to quash the recording of evidence by affidavit and further cross-examination of the respondent — Whether the court's acceptance of the accused's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief is sustainable — The petitioner argued that the affidavit filed by the accused, who was in Dubai, should not be accepted and sought further cross-examination —
India Law Library Docid # 2416390

(773) PAVAN Vs. STATE BY PSI JAGALUR POLICE STATION AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363 and 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 6 and 33(5) — Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 — Section 9 — The petitioner, charged under IPC, POCSO, and Child Marriage Restraint Act, sought to recall witnesses for further cross-examination, initially denied — The court allowed the petition, citing the need for a just decision, especially as the victim is now 19 — It noted the importance of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and referenced
India Law Library Docid # 2416375

(774) MR. PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8C, 20(B)(II)(b) and 67 — The petitioner, a former Manipal Institute of Technology student, was implicated in a drug case based on co-accused statements — He was absent during the search and later labeled absconding — The court questioned whether proceedings could continue solely on confessional statements — The petitioner argued these statements lacked evidentiary value without corroboration — The respondent insisted the petitioner
India Law Library Docid # 2416378

(775) M/S KLR GROUP ENTERPRISES Vs. MADHU H V AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 9 and 37 — Karnataka Arbitration Rules, 2001 — The case involves an appellant seeking an ex-parte interim injunction against respondents to protect their property and development works — The key issue is whether an order under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, granting or refusing ex-parte interim measures is appealable under Section 37 of the Act — The petitioner argued that such orders are appealable, citing the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration Ru
India Law Library Docid # 2416380

(776) ABHAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 420 read with 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — The petitioner's wife filed multiple complaints against him, including dowry demands and cruelty, following their 2014 marriage and subsequent separation — The court considered whether to quash the proceedings under Sections 498A, 420 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1961 — The petitioner argued the allegations were false and an abuse of legal process, while the respondent supporte
India Law Library Docid # 2416382

(777) SANTOSH B.REDDY AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE BY BANASWADI P.S. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 420 — The petitioners are accused of fraudulently mortgaging a property without the complainant's consent, using forged documents to obtain a loan of Rs. 7.10 crores — Whether the registration of the crime under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC should be quashed — Petitioners argue that the issue is civil in nature, and the complainant is using criminal law to harass the petitioners — Wheresas the respondent contentds that the petitioners used forged docu
India Law Library Docid # 2416383

(778) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. D.T. KRISHNEGOWDA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 — The complainant was assaulted, and the police filed a charge sheet, dropping accused No.2 — Whether the order rejecting the application to bring back accused No. 2 as an accused should be set aside — The prosecution and complainant argued that the 3rd respondent should be tried as he was involved in the crime, supported by witness testimonies — The 3rd respondent argued he was not present at the crime scene and was representing a client i
India Law Library Docid # 2416384

(779) B.S. POORNIMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(c)(d) r/w 13(2) — Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 — Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B — Petitioner challenges FIR for alleged corruption in fixing betterment charges, citing previous court orders quashing proceedings against similar accused — Argues adherence to Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) resolutions — Respondent contends previous order is final — Court quashes FIR, finds petitioner act
India Law Library Docid # 2416397

(780) M/S PVR INOX LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INOX LEISURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE) AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-07-2024
Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 75(4)— Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 —The main issue is whether the respondents violated the principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the RGST Act, 2017 by not providing an opportunity for a personal hearing — The petitioner argued that the impugned orders violated natural justice and Section 75(4) as the notices were not reflected on their GSTIN Portal due to technical glitches, denying them a per
India Law Library Docid # 2416479