(781) K. MAREPPA Vs. STATE OF AP AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 23-10-2024 Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Sessions Case No.210 of 2015, dated 29.12.2016, the de facto complainant (PW.1) filed the present Criminal Appeal. The respondents 2 to 9 herein/A1 to A8 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 Part-II read with 34 IPC. India Law Library Docid # 2420970
(782) P. AYYAPPA Vs. A. RAJENDRA REDDY AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 23-10-2024 This Second Appeal is filed against the order dated 04.04.2013 dismissing the appeal in C.M.A.No.04 of 2012 on the file of I-Additional District Judge, Chittoor, which is filed against order dated 04.01.2012 dismissing the E.A.No.210 of 2011 in E.P.No.28 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC by the appellant herein to set aside the sale of E.P.Schedule property held on 08.11.2010. India Law Library Docid # 2420971
(783) VAIBHAV AHUJA Vs. CHANDNI CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Partition Suit — Dispute over the partition and declaration of shares in properties located in New Delhi and Punjab, along with movable properties of the deceased ‘R’ — The main issue is whether the summons were properly served to the Appellant, who claims they were not served according to the prescribed procedures — The Appellant argues that the summons were not served properly and that the Single Judge failed to appreciate this — They claim that the service was not in accordance with the CPC a India Law Library Docid # 2419198
(784) REKHA VERMA Vs. SHRI ATUL KUMAR GOEL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 10 and 12 — The petitioner filed a contempt petition for allegedly disobeying a court order regarding the auction of a mortgaged property — The main issue is whether the respondents violated the court's directions by not providing detailed information about the auctioned property — The petitioner argued that the auction notice lacked necessary details about the property, violating the court's previous order — PNB's counsel claimed the petitioner was abusing India Law Library Docid # 2419197
(785) CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT.KAMLESH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Punjab Civil Service Rules — Rule 4.19(a) — Family Pension — The respondent's husband, resigned from his position after 15 years of service and later passed away — The respondent claimed entitlement to family pension based on his service — Whether the respondent is entitled to family pension despite her husband's resignation — The appellants argued that resignation disqualifies the respondent from receiving a family pension under Rule 4.19(a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules — The respondent co India Law Library Docid # 2419245
(786) SHIVALI SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 22-10-2024 Service Law — Appointment — Termination — Petitioners were appointed as teachers at Army Public School, Udhampur, but were terminated without proper notice or reason — Whether the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) qualifies as a "State" under Article 12, and if the termination of the petitioners was justified — Petitioner argues that the termination was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice — They argued that AWES performs a public duty and thus falls under Article 12 — Respon India Law Library Docid # 2419277
(787) PANKAJ SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 22-10-2024 Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 — Section 8(1)(a) — Detention — Challenged — The detention was based on multiple FIRs alleging serious criminal activities — The main issue was whether the preventive detention order was valid, given that previous similar orders had been quashed — The petitioner argued that the detention order was based on the same grounds as previous orders, which had been quashed, indicating non-application of mind by the authorities — The respondents claimed that the de India Law Library Docid # 2419305
(788) MAIHAR CEMENT PIPE INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Tender — Gem Portal — Appellant challenged the legality of a tender awarded to another bidder for coal loading and transportation — Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were found to be L-1 bidders with identical lowest bids — The main issue was whether the selection of the final L-1 bidder through a random algorithm on the GeM portal was valid, given the tender's specific terms — The petitioner argued that the selection process deviated from the tender's terms, leading to arbitrariness and d India Law Library Docid # 2419407
(789) MUKESH RANKA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-10-2024 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120-B — Corruption in granting building permissions —Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC should be quashed due to lack of evidence of bribery or illegal gratification — The petitioners argued that they were wrongly implicated, as there was no evidence of bribery or illegal enrichment, and the permissions were granted following due pro India Law Library Docid # 2419408
(790) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAKASH PANDHARINATH RAJPUT[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420 — The case involves the acquittal of Police Sub-Inspector who was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,500 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — The main issue is whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was correct, focusing on the evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe — The State argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the evid India Law Library Docid # 2419589
(791) MR. DATTATRAY BAPU DIGHE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Copyright Act, 1957 — Sections 63, 63B and 65 — The case involves appellant who was found with duplicated books and materials published by Relx India Pvt. Ltd — He was arrested and charged under the Copyright Act — The main issue is whether the registration of a copyright is required before launching a prosecution — The petitioner argued that the copyright must be registered with Indian authorities to initiate prosecution and that the search and seizure procedures were improper — The respondent India Law Library Docid # 2419590
(792) RATHNAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. OMANA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Partition Suit — The case involves a dispute over the partition of a property belonging to ‘S’, who passed away in 2002 — The plaintiffs are his wife, children, and mother, while the defendants are individuals claiming rights through a Will — The main issue is whether the property should be partitioned among the plaintiffs and defendants or if the Will executed by ‘S’ in favor of the defendants is valid — The plaintiffs argue for partitioning the property, claiming the will is not validly execut India Law Library Docid # 2419620
(793) RAZAK H Vs. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Transfer of Property Act — Sections 123 and 129 — Gift Deed — Muslim Personal Law — The petitioner received a gift of immovable property from his father through an oral gift and an unregistered gift deed — The Village Officer refused to mutate the property in his name due to the unregistered status of the gift deed — Whether the unregistered gift deed is valid under Muslim Personal Law and if the Village Officer's refusal to mutate the property is justified — The petitioner argued that under Mus India Law Library Docid # 2419621
(794) SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. Vs. MR.JOSHY THOAMS AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Section 19 — The South Indian Bank Ltd. advanced credit to ‘K’, which defaulted — The bank initiated recovery proceedings, and the 1st respondent filed a suit challenging the power of attorney used for the loan — The main issue is whether the Sub Court, Tirur, was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to stay the civil suit until the Debt Recovery Tribunal's decision — The petitioner argued that the same issues were being litigated in bo India Law Library Docid # 2419622
(795) S. MOHAMMED NOWFAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406 — The petitioner is accused of not depositing employees' Provident Fund contributions from 2006 to 2008 — Whether prior sanction from the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is required for prosecution under Section 406 IPC — The petitioner argued that prior sanction is necessary, citing previous judgments from Gujarat and Bombay High Courts — The prosecution argued that no such sanction is required for offenses under Section 406 IPC, only for those under the India Law Library Docid # 2419623
(796) JAYASHREE JAYANTH Vs. N. KRISHNASWAMY AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Partition Suit — Ancestral Joint Family Property — The case involves a dispute over the partition and separate possession of properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family of ‘B' — The plaintiff claims a 1/8th share in the properties — The main issue is whether the properties in question are ancestral joint family properties and if the plaintiff is entitled to a share — The plaintiff argues that the properties are ancestral and were acquired from the income of ancestral properties — She clai India Law Library Docid # 2419690
(797) SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED BILASPUR Vs. M/S BANSILAL NANDA[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — The dispute involves a contract for construction work awarded to respondent — The contract faced delays, leading to arbitration —The main issues were the delay in work completion, the validity of the arbitration award, and the interest awarded on the claims —Petitioner argued that the contractor delayed the work and was not entitled to the awarded claims, including price differences and interest — Respondent contended that the arbitration awa India Law Library Docid # 2419737
(798) NARSHING KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Arms Act, 1959 — 25 and 27 — Murder with a countrymade revolver — Whether the appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302 of IPC and related charges under the Arms Act — The appellants argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, highlighting contradictions and lack of motive — The State supported the trial court's judgment, asserting that the evidence was sufficient to convict both appellants —The court found that appellan India Law Library Docid # 2419738
(799) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IV Vs. M/S. VENKATESWARA SILK MILLS[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 22-10-2024 Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 9D — The respondent firm was found to be involved in the clandestine transfer of finished goods without paying excise duty — A search conducted on 29.08.1996 revealed excess stock and unaccounted goods — Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the demands of duty and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, and whether the appellant needed to prove the clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods — The appellant argued that the fin India Law Library Docid # 2419781
(800) THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT LAL TAILOR[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 22-10-2024 Rajasthan Technical Education (Engineering) Service Rules, 2010 — Rule 36 — Appointment — Appointed as an Instructor (Electric) and later as a Lecturer (Electric). — Later terminated due to alleged involvement in corruption — Whether Rule 36 applies and if the termination was valid without a hearing — The State argued that Rule 36 does not apply to different cadres and that the termination was justified due to corruption — Respondent argued that Rule 36 applies and that he was not given a fair h India Law Library Docid # 2419839