ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(861) PARVEEN @ RAMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — 21B, 27A, 61 and 85 — Possession of 12 grams of heroin and Rs. 10,000, which the police termed as drug money — The main issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the charges under the NDPS Act — The petitioner argues for bail, citing no criminal antecedents and the hardship of pre-trial incarceration on her family — The State opposes bail, emphasizing the recovery of heroin and the money, which they claim is drug-related
India Law Library Docid # 2419250

(862) KARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER Vs. MEHAR SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
In pre-emption suits, the correct description of land in the sale deed prevails over any typographical error in the plaint, allowing the preemptor to claim ownership as per the sale deed's description.

Property Dispute — The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership for land measuring 11 kanal, 1 marla — The land was originally owned by ‘M’ and sold to ‘K’ in 1962 — Multiple pre-emption suits followed, with plaintiff eventually being granted the right to preempt th
India Law Library Docid # 2419253

(863) MADAN LAL TYAGI Vs. ANAND AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Suit for Declaration and Possession — The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration, joint possession, and permanent injunction regarding disputed property — The trial court dismissed the suit on 18.11.2014, and the First Appellate Court upheld this decision on 09.09.2017 — The main issue was whether the plaintiff was a party to a previous civil suit and whether the judgment and decree from that suit were valid — The plaintiff argued that he was not a party to the previous suit, did not engage an
India Law Library Docid # 2419254

(864) MOHD. MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Ranbir Penal Code 1989 — Section 302 — Murder of Wife — The prosecution alleged that accused shot his wife with his service revolver due to an extramarital affair — Whether the appellant was guilty of murdering his wife and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction — The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated, arguing that his wife died from an accidental fall and that all bullets issued to him were accounted for — The prosecution argued that the circumstantial
India Law Library Docid # 2419274

(865) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. FATIMA BEGUM AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — The case involves two appeals arising from a common award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) related to a fatal accident — The deceased were Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers — The main issue is the calculation of the deceased's income for compensation purposes — The appellant (United India Insurance Company) argues that the MACT wrongly calculated the income as Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 2,000 — The appellant contends that the MACT's award is excessive
India Law Library Docid # 2419275

(866) DR. SUMIT SABARWAL Vs. DR. OM PARKASH GUPTA[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Letters Patent of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh — Clause 12 — The case involves appellant challenging an order directing the police to register an FIR and form a Special Investigation Team to investigate the death of respondent’s son — The main issue is whether a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in criminal jurisdiction — The petitioner argues that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh does
India Law Library Docid # 2419289

(867) TULSI RAM LODHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Cross Examination — Right of — The application was filed against the order, which closed the applicant's right to cross-examine the prosecutrix —Whether the trial court erred in closing the applicant's right to cross-examine the prosecutrix — The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not properly prepared and requested more time for cross-examination, which was denied — The State opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had sufficient opportunity and that further delay wou
India Law Library Docid # 2419409

(868) RAJU RAJPUT AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 294, 506, 307, 147 and 148 — Arms Act, 1959 —Sections 25 and 27 — The case involves a criminal revision against an order passed in a pending trial related to offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act — The applicants were added as accused based on material in the case diary —The main issue is whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to register and decide the MJC (Miscellaneous Judicial Case) before the case was committed to it — The applicants argued
India Law Library Docid # 2419410

(869) TANMANSINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 3 and 25(1-B)(A) — Possession of illegal weapons — The main issue was whether the conviction and sentence were justified based on the evidence presented — The petitioner argued that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and there were contradictions in the testimonies of the police witnesses — The petitioner also requested leniency in sentencing, citing the time already spent in jail — The State supported the conviction and sentence, arguing
India Law Library Docid # 2419411

(870) AKHILESH PANDEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Illegal Detention — The petitioner alleges that he was illegally detained and beaten by police officers — He claims that a false FIR was lodged against him — The main issues are whether the police officers used excessive force, whether the FIR was fabricated, and whether the petitioner was subjected to police brutality — The petitioner argues that he was beaten without provocation, that the police demanded a bribe, and that the FIR was falsified to cover up the police's actions — He provided CCT
India Law Library Docid # 2419412

(871) PUNJAB NATION BANK Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAISEN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 14 — Punjab National Bank challenged an order by the Collector, Raisen, which dismissed the Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for physical possession of a secured asset — Whether a secured creditor can seek possession after issuing a sale certificate — Whether the authority under Section 14 has adjudicatory powers — Whether the secured creditor can approach
India Law Library Docid # 2419413

(872) ROSHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) and 376(3) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 — The appellant, was convicted of sexual offences against a minor — Victim was 13 years old at the time — The main issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony, the validity of the birth certificate proving the victim's age, and the reliability of the DNA evidence — The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evid
India Law Library Docid # 2419605

(873) CHANDRAKANT Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Section 62 — The petitioner a Member of the Legislative Assembly, seeks the removal of duplicate voter names from the electoral roll in Muktainagar Constituency, Jalgaon District — Whether the respondents failed to address the petitioner's representations to remove duplicate voter names and provide adequate infrastructure for this task — The petitioner argues that the presence of duplicate names undermines the election's integrity and that the respondents
India Law Library Docid # 2419608

(874) ABHIMANYU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, and 471 read with section 34 — Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 — Sections 3, 4 and 5 — The respondents, office bearers and trustees of Mahatma Bashweshwar Education Society, were accused of accepting donations from students for admissions and not depositing them with the college or society, committing forgery — Whether the respondents should be discharged based on the evidence and documents presented — The
India Law Library Docid # 2419612

(875) SMT. SUCHITA BADA AND OTHERS Vs. MOHAN BARGAH AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Motor Accident Claims — The case involves two motor accident claims where the deceased ‘A’ and ‘B’, were hit by a truck — Both died as a result of the accident — The main issue is the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants — The claimants argued that the Tribunal underestimated the deceased's income and did not account for future prospects or adequately compensate for conventional heads — The insurance company contended that the Tribunal's award was fair and based
India Law Library Docid # 2419741

(876) SMT. SIMA MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. USHA MISHRA[PATNA HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 — Section 14(8) — Eviction — Bonafide Requirement — The defendants claim ownership of the property and deny any landlord-tenant relationship — The main issues are whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit premises and whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties — The defendants argue that the sale deeds were canceled due to non-payment and that they never paid rent, asserting ownership of the pro
India Law Library Docid # 2419893

(877) ASHOK MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[PATNA HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(N) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — The appellant was convicted of raping a minor girl multiple times — The victim was a student in Standard VII and the incidents occurred in a maize field and other locations — The main issues include the credibility of the victim's testimony, the lack of independent witnesses, and the failure to provide documentary evidence of the victim's age — The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction w
India Law Library Docid # 2419895

(878) STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAI PAL SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 337 and 304A — Rash and Negligent driving — The case involves an accident where a bus driven by the accused hit a truck, resulting in injuries and the death of a child — Whether the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident — The State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused, asserting that the evidence showed the accused's negligence — The defense maintained that the trial court correctly acquitted
India Law Library Docid # 2420106

(879) NISHA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Rape — Compromise — Whether the FIR can be quashed based on a compromise in cases involving serious offences like those under Section 376 IPC — The informant does not wish to pursue the case and has filed an affidavit supporting the compromise — The State argued that once criminal law is set in motion, the State takes over, and the informant has a limited role — The court cited various precedents, emphasizing that serious offences cannot be quashed based on
India Law Library Docid # 2420107

(880) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANISH RAWAT[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-10-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20 and 50 — Police apprehended respondent with 840 grams of charas — The trial court acquitted him due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act — Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused based on the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act — The prosecution argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and that Section 50 was not applicable as the contraband was found i
India Law Library Docid # 2420108