(801) THE MANAGEMENT, COLACUMBY TEA MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (Gratuity Rules) — Rule 11(5) — Proviso — Application to set aside Ex-parte Order/Dismissal for Default — Limitation — The 30-day period prescribed in the proviso to Rule 11(5) for seeking to set aside an ex-parte order or an order of dismissal for default is directory, not mandatory — This rule is procedural in nature and, given that the Gratuity Act is a social beneficial legislation, inflexibility would defeat the Act's objective India Law Library Docid # 2438114
(802) WORKMEN OF MRF LIMITED Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF MRF LIMITED AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Applicability against Private Bodies — Writ petition seeking mandamus against private company (Management) regarding payment of health insurance premium for non-ESI workers based on wage settlements — Held, relief under Article 226, being a public law remedy, is generally available only against the State, its instrumentalities, or a body/person discharging a public or statutory duty — The term "person" under Article India Law Library Docid # 2438115
(803) K.JAYARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Human Rights Violation — State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) — Police Excess — Quashing of SHRC recommendations — Police officers (Respondents) attempting to arrest Complainant (accused in a pending case under IPC Section 307) at Tiruchirappalli Cantonment Police Station — Incident resulting in scuffle captured on CCTV camera and Complainant sustaining injuries — SHRC finding that while police action to arrest was initially lawful, they exceeded limits and used excessive India Law Library Docid # 2438116
(804) M.A. HAMEED Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(g) — Right to practice law — An advocate who has surrendered their Sanad and received benefits under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act can seek withdrawal of surrender and re-registration upon refunding the amount with interest — Refusal to permit re-registration is an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right. India Law Library Docid # 2438243
(805) M/S. SRIDEVI HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY [INDIA] LIMITED AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 — Section 33 — Impounding of documents — Order for impounding under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, found to be ex facie void as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the concerned party. India Law Library Docid # 2438244
(806) YALLAPPA Vs. SMT. TANGAMMA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 34 — Declaration of title — Maintainability of suit without claiming possession — A suit for declaration of title and injunction is maintainable even without claiming possession if the plaintiff is found to be in constructive possession and the defendant's possession is only as an agent, caretaker, or labourer. The trial court's dismissal of the suit on the ground of not seeking India Law Library Docid # 2438250
(807) RAJIYABI AND OTHERS Vs. MAKTUMBI AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Land dispute — Plaintiffs claiming ownership based on a sale deed executed in 1957 in favour of their father, who was a minor at the time, represented by his father (Nabisab) as guardian. Defendants claiming ownership based on a partition and gift allegedly made by Nabisab during his lifetime. Both lower courts decreed the suit in favour of the India Law Library Docid # 2438251
(808) KESHAVARAO AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL SUKUR AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Substantial Questions of Law Framed — Right of Pre-emption — Application of Mahomedan Law — Compliance with Formalities (Talab-i-Mowasibat and Talab-i-Ishhad) — Suit for Declaratory Relief and Mandatory Injunction. India Law Library Docid # 2438252
(809) CHANDERAKANT AND OTHERS Vs. GYANOBA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Wrong description in Sale Deed — A false description does not vitiate a transaction if the property can still be identified. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 95 — Extrinsic evidence can be used to clarify a document if the language is plain but unmeaning in reference to existing facts, or to show it was used in a peculiar sense. This principle allows for the rectification of India Law Library Docid # 2438253
(810) SMT. SHARANAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. SHARANAGOUDA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 18-12-2025 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 14 — Property of Hindu female — If possessed by a Hindu female, she is deemed to be the full owner — Even if property is acquired by gift, Will, decree or award, she remains full owner unless the terms prescribe a restricted estate — Section 14(1) has widest possible amplitude to include ownership even without physical possession, especially when a right to maintenance exists. India Law Library Docid # 2438255
(811) ANOOP AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 82 — Proclamation for person absconding — Writ jurisdiction — Interference with interlocutory orders — Interference with orders issuing proclamation and initiating attachment is permissible only upon demonstration of clear jurisdictional error or violation of mandatory statutory requirements. Factual disputes regarding the petitioners' conduct and the investigating India Law Library Docid # 2438404
(812) SHASHANK PANT Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2023 — Writ Petition Challenging Final Answer Key and Result — Examination of Questions 55, 60, 71, and 76 — Petitioner's Grievances Regarding Erroneous Answer Key and Deleted Question — Court's Power to Interfere with Examination Matters — Principles of Natural Justice and Fairness in Examinations. India Law Library Docid # 2438405
(813) SURYANSH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Administrative Law - Evaluation of Examination - Ambiguity or Error in Question - Court Intervention - Courts may intervene if key answers are demonstrably wrong or questions have multiple correct answers, but generally exercise restraint in matters of public examinations. India Law Library Docid # 2438406
(814) SHIVAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 120-B — Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy — Revisional Jurisdiction — Interference Principles — High Court in revisional jurisdiction should not re-assess evidence like an appellate court but should examine if findings are perverse, illegal, or result in miscarriage of justice — Concurrent findings by two lower courts, if based on evidence and reasoned, are generally upheld unless exceptional circumstances exist. India Law Library Docid # 2438407
(815) CHALLAGUNDLA BHASKARA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF A P[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 149, 324 — Rioting, Punishable by 148, Common object of unlawful assembly rendering all guilty of offence committed in prosecution of that common object, Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means — When there is a free fight between two groups and injuries are sustained by both sides, it is imperative to ascertain who inflicted specific injuries on whom. India Law Library Docid # 2438505
(816) SRI KARTHIKEYA SECURITY SERVICES Vs. MC LEAN INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Contract Law — Tendering Process — Deficiencies in Bids — A bidder cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae in their bid after the technical bid has been opened. Any attempt to do so, if it amounts to filling in missing essential documents rather than merely explaining existing ones, would violate tender conditions and unfairly affect the competitive position of other bidders. India Law Library Docid # 2438507
(817) SMT. V.VENKATA LAKSHMI Vs. M/S. SRINIVASA FINANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Revision against show-cause notice — Defendant No. 2 challenged the show-cause notice issued in execution proceedings. Grounds for challenge included the decree being ex parte, improper service, passing of decree after the death of Defendant No. 1 without impleading legal representatives, and the suit's maintainability against Defendant No. 2 India Law Library Docid # 2438600
(818) LAGUNA RESORT PVT. LTD. Vs. CONCEPT HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 and Section 43(4) — Limitation for commencement of fresh proceedings after award is set aside — Exclusion of time spent in previous arbitration proceedings — Scope and Applicability of Section 43(4) — Previous arbitration (under Evergreen Agreement of 2011) partly set aside by High Court on grounds of jurisdiction (Award seeking adjudication of claims for period 1 April 2009 to 11 March 2011 not covered by 2011 India Law Library Docid # 2437255
(819) DILIP GOUR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 6 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault) r/w Section 42 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(k) — Conviction and Sentence — Appeal from jail against conviction for sexual assault on a minor, deaf and dumb victim — Evidence of victim (PW.5) recorded with the help of an interpreter supported by circumstantial evidence India Law Library Docid # 2437237
(820) SAHAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 17-12-2025 Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 — Rule 6(1)(a) — Suspension pending departmental proceedings — Duration of suspension — The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if, within this period, the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent employee — If the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension — Where neither the chargesheet was India Law Library Docid # 2437238