(781) GULZARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 19-07-2024 Urban Co-operative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006 — Rule 14 — The appellant sought an extension of his services, which was denied by the respondents — The appellant was discriminated against and whether the denial of re-employment was arbitrary — Appellant argued that he was treated unfairly and that others were granted re-employment — Respondents contended that there is no provision for service extension, only re-employment, which is at the employer's discretion — Appeal was dismissed, up India Law Library Docid # 2416480
(782) PMP INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LIMITED AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2010 — The case involves a contract for loading and transporting limestone awarded to United Coal Carrier (UCC) by Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (RSMML) — The contract was terminated due to UCC's failure to commence work on time, and Petitioner was offered the contract as a stopgap arrangement — Can a terminated contract be revived? — Does the Chairman have the authority to revive a terminated contract? —Petitioner argued that the con India Law Library Docid # 2416494
(783) KAMRAN ALI KHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K TH. CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS[JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Cancellation of Land — The petitioner challenged the cancellation of land allotted to him by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) after fulfilling all formalities and payments — Whether the JDA's cancellation of the land allotment was lawful and justified — The petitioner argued that the cancellation was unjustified, issued with a preconceived notion, and violated the principles of estoppel and acquiescence — The JDA contended that the cancellation was based on a decision by the Board of Direct India Law Library Docid # 2416562
(784) JANKI DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHARANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The deceased died in a motorcycle accident caused by respondent No.1 — The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 — The appellants (parents of the deceased) sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal — Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate — Whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed — The Tribunal wrongly assessed the deceased's income as Rs. 5,000 pe India Law Library Docid # 2416625
(785) LEKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. AMI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Property Law — Dispute over ownership of land — The case involves a dispute over ownership of land in Gurgaon, with the plaintiff claiming ownership through adverse possession — Whether the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession is valid and if the judgments of the lower courts were correct — The appellants argued that the plaintiff did not prove continuous and adverse possession and that the lower courts' judgments were based on presumptions — The respondents contended that the plaintiff's pos India Law Library Docid # 2416626
(786) RAJDEEP SINGH Vs. RAJSHER SINGH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Sections 18 and 20 — Maintenance Entitlement — The case involves regarding maintenance payments under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) and the Domestic Violence (DV) Act — The main issue is the computation and adjustment of maintenance amounts awarded under different statutes and whether the amounts paid under the DV Act should be set off against those awarded under HAMA — The petitioner argued that the maintenance awarded under the DV Act India Law Library Docid # 2416627
(787) DR. KIRTI BHUSHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 377 —Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 11 and 12 — The petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet and summoning order based on allegations of non-consensual anal sex and harassment by his wife — Whether a husband can be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC for anal sex with his wife and the applicability of Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act — The petitioner argues that as a husband, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC due to India Law Library Docid # 2417067
(788) SMT. MADHU KAMBOJ Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DEHRADUN AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Allotment of Petrol Pump — Cancellation of ‘No objection Certificate’ — The petitioner was appointed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited to run a petrol pump in Dehradun — The District Magistrate canceled the 'no objection' certificate due to non-compliance with CPCB guidelines —Whether the CPCB guidelines issued on 07.01.2020 apply to the petitioner's petrol pump and if the cancellation of the 'no objection' certificate was justified — Petitioner's Arguments —The guidelines should not apply as th India Law Library Docid # 2417068
(789) PAWAN JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 19-07-2024 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 — Section 528 — Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 — Section 18(c) and 18-A — The High Court quashed the orders dated 30.05.2024 and 03.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, which initiated fresh proclamation proceedings against the petitioner and directed him to appear before the court on 07.09.2024 — The court observed that the petitioner was never served with the notices or bailable warrants issued earlier, and there was no evidence to s India Law Library Docid # 2416230
(790) BIMLA SACHDEV Vs. SUBUR AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 11 — Definition of Matters Sub Judice — Officials of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) are guilty of contempt of court for deliberately disobeying the court's directions — The court directed the DDA to execute a conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner for a property in Delhi and to bear the entire cost of the conveyance deed, including stamp papers and registration charges — The court also issued notice to the Vice Chairman of the DDA and Deputy Dire India Law Library Docid # 2416138
(791) DISH TV INDIA LTD Vs. GULF DTH FZ LLC AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 — Delhi High Court Act, 1966 — Section 10(1) — High Court ruled that an order closing the right to file a written statement in a commercial dispute case is an appealable order under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 — The court held that the order affects a valuable right of the defendant to defend the suit and therefore qualifies as a 'judgment' under the Supreme Court's decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D India Law Library Docid # 2416139
(792) NARESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Service Law — Regular Promotion — Earlier writ petition dismissed — The writ petition was sought to quash an order of the CAT and a seniority list, and to grant the petitioner regular promotion as an Executive Engineer (EE) against a vacancy year of 2001-2002 — The petitioner argued that the previous judgment failed to consider that unfilled vacancies in the post of EE from the quota of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) were diverted to Assistant Engineers (AEs) in accordance with a 1996 rule India Law Library Docid # 2416140
(793) M/S TODAY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. GUNVEEN SINGH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(4) — The High Court has dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5.74 crores and Rs. 1.01 crores — The court found that the defendant's defence was sham, frivolous, and moonshine — The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest under Order XXXVII CPC, even if it was not mentioned in the contract — The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to India Law Library Docid # 2416141
(794) JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA Vs. SHAKEEL AHMAD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Jamia Millia Islamia University Act, 1988 — Section 2(n) — Reinstatement — Retirement Benefits — The High Court dismissed an appeal by Jamia Millia Islamia University against a judgment that reinstated a Research Assistant to his position and granted him retirement benefits at the age of 65 years — The court held that respondent who had been performing teaching duties for 32 years, fell under the definition of "Teacher" under Section 2(n) of the Act, 1988, and was therefore entitled to the retir India Law Library Docid # 2416142
(795) DHANUSH VIR SINGH Vs. DR, ILA SHARMA AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 — Sections 17 and 25 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule 41 and Order 21 Rule 37 — Powers of Court to enforce execution — In a case where a money decree was issued against a company, the decree holder attempted to execute the decree by arresting and detaining the revisionist, who, although not a judgment debtor, held a significant position within the company — The court ruled that the CPC does not permit the arrest and India Law Library Docid # 2416143
(796) SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SETHI Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 156 and 157 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 34, 406, 420 and 506 — Criminal Breach of trust — Legality and correctness of an FIR challenged — The petitioner argued that the allegations made by the respondent were false and not supported by any documents — The petitioner further stated that the respondent had filed the FIR with an intent to extort money and use it as a pressure tactic to part with the share portion of the property and building b India Law Library Docid # 2416144
(797) THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) Vs. YAMBEM NINGTHEM SINGH[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 409, 406, 403, 120-B and 34 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) — The High Court has set aside an order allowing accused in a corruption case involving the Manipur Development Society (MDS), to travel to Abu Dhabi for medical treatment — The court observed that the medical documents submitted by accused failed to establish a medical necessity for him to travel abroad for treatment — The court also noted that accused had previou India Law Library Docid # 2416145
(798) SHRI PAUMINTHANG ALIAS PMT NEIHSIAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 506, 447, 153A, 427 and 147 — Compromise — The High Court has quashed an FIR registered against 16 individuals — The court found that the dispute had been amicably resolved through a compromise agreement between the complainant and the accused persons, and that the possibility of conviction was remote — The court cited several precedents, including the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Parbatbhai Aah India Law Library Docid # 2416146
(799) SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM TEJKESHWARE SINGH Vs. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Service Law — Appointment — The petitioner challenged the Manipur University's decision to declare him ineligible for the post of Director, Educational Multimedia Research Centre (EMMRC), on the grounds that he had not completed ten years of regular service — The petitioner had previously served as a Production Assistant in the Audio Visual Research Centre (AVRC) in Manipur University and as an Upper Division Assistant (UDA) in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench — The Court found that the peti India Law Library Docid # 2416147
(800) SMT. MEMA PAUL AND ANOTHER Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER[MANIPUR HIGH COURT] 18-07-2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 153(1)(2) — Re-assessment of an individual's income tax return — The High Court ruled that the reassessment of an individual's income tax return must be completed within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 153(2) — The assessment order was passed on December 28, 2006, but was only communicated to the taxpayer on January 5, 2007, which was beyond the nine-month period prescribed under section 153(2) — Therefore, the court held that the reassessment pro India Law Library Docid # 2416148