(921) SATTAR KHAN Vs. ZILA PARISHAD DAUSHA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-02-2025 Other Backward Class (OBC) category — Benefits under — A Muslim individual belonging to the "Teli" caste is entitled to benefits — A person's membership in the OBC category is determined by their traditional hereditary occupation, notwithstanding their religious affiliation, as per the State's Gazette Notification and Resolutions (e.g., No.12011/4/2002-BCC dt. 19.06.2003), thus, a Muslim-Teli is eligible for OBC benefits, and denying such benefits solely based on their Muslim faith is unjustifie India Law Library Docid # 2422662
(922) CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. RAM NIWAS SHARMA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-02-2025 Service Law — Suspension — 'On duty' for pay and allowance purposes — Where an employee is suspended only due to a pending investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act and is later acquitted, restricting their pay during the suspension period to subsistence allowance amounts to punishment without departmental proceedings; thus, the suspension period should be treated as 'on duty' for pay and allowance purposes, with arrears payable to the acquitted employee. India Law Library Docid # 2422663
(923) M/S GRAIN ENERGY PVT. LTD. Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, LCD AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Customs Act, 1962 — Section 27 — Refund of Interest on Import Duty — The Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, allows for refund of interest paid on import duty due to technical glitches in the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) system, with the date of removal of system inability certified by the Directorate General of Systems (D.G. Systems India Law Library Docid # 2422667
(924) RAJESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 — Rule 8 — Transfer of Employees in Panchayati Raj Department — The Rajasthan High Court rules that transfers of employees within the Panchayati Raj Department must comply with Rule 8, which mandates transfers to be made by the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad India Law Library Docid # 2422668
(925) A Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) for Minor Rape Victims — Balancing Reproductive Autonomy with Fetal Rights and State Responsibility — In cases of minor rape victims seeking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) beyond the 24-week limit under the Act, 1971, courts must balance the reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman (including minors) under Article 21 of the Constitution with the fundamental right to life of the fetus, particularly when India Law Library Docid # 2422740
(926) SHAILA RAJE PAWAR ALIAS SHAILA DEVI Vs. REGISTRAR BIRTH AND DEATH REGISTRATION[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 05-02-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 5(I) and 11 — Authenticity of Spousal Status in Official Records — Precedence of Authentic Documents over Disputed Claims — In determining the authenticity of a spouse's name in official records, such as a death certificate, authentic documents of identification (e.g., Passport, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID, and Samagra ID) take precedence over disputed claims or commercial documents (e.g., partnership deeds) that may imply a marital relationship — If a dis India Law Library Docid # 2422741
(927) MOULALI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 05-02-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Revenue authorities are empowered to make entries in the Record of Rights (RTC) regarding interim court orders, including injunctions, under the concept of lis pendens without a specific court direction, to prevent transactions during pending suits. India Law Library Docid # 2423120
(928) ITHITHANAM ELAMKAVU DEVASWOM AND OTHERS Vs. JAIMON. M.C. AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 92 — Grant of Leave under Section 92 of CPC for Public Trust Suits — The court can grant leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if a prima facie case is made out, considering the allegations in the plaint/petition, and this leave is preliminary and not conclusive. India Law Library Docid # 2423185
(929) K.N. NARASIMHA SHENOY Vs. ANNIE JOS THALIATH AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 of the Schedule — Limitation Period for Specific Performance of Contract — The period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract is three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no such date is fixed, from when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation India Law Library Docid # 2423186
(930) DAVIS P R AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — Sections 324(5) and 333 — Bail Conditions for Offences Involving Property Damage — In cases where property damage is a significant aspect of the alleged offence, such as those under Sections 324(5) and 333, the court can impose a condition for granting bail that requires the accused to deposit an amount equivalent to the assessed damages, subject to the outcome India Law Library Docid # 2423187
(931) R. MAGADAIAH Vs. I.G. CRPF, RAJASTHAN AND OTEHRS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 05-02-2025 Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 — Section 11 (1) — Central Police Force Regulation, 1995 — Rule 27 — The High Court petitioned to challenge an order dismissing a CRPF constable from service — The constable was dismissed for misconduct, specifically, entering the residential quarter of a fellow constable without authorisation — The court considered whether this misconduct warranted dismissal, considering the doctrine of proportionality and the scope of judicial review — The court noted tha India Law Library Docid # 2423249
(932) MANUBHAI DAHYABHAI VAGHELA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 114 and 436 — In cases of non-compoundable offenses like mischief by fire under Section 436, while a formal compromise cannot be recorded, a settlement between parties and time served can be valid grounds for reducing the sentence in appeal. India Law Library Docid # 2423307
(933) RAJESH MAHESHBHAI JETHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — A wife's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125, can be limited for the period after she enters into a live-in relationship during the subsistence of her marriage. India Law Library Docid # 2423318
(934) MER VAJSHIBHAI JIVABHAI PARMAR Vs. LEGAL HIERS OF KASHIBEN SHANTIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — Section 43(2) — An agreement to sell new tenure land without prior Collector sanction is invalid and its specific performance is barred. India Law Library Docid # 2423330
(935) S.K. YAKOOB AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, S. 12, S. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)— Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Conviction under S. 7 and S. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of bribe — Merely handling bribe amount at someone's instance does not constitute abetment under S. 12 of the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2423367
(936) M. WILLIAM Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Conviction under S. 7 and S. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt — Mere recovery of bribe amount is not sufficient for conviction; demand of bribe must also be proved. India Law Library Docid # 2423368
(937) RAVINDRA MURLIDHAR BHAMBHRE Vs. LHS OF DECD. AATAJI JENAJI THAKOR AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 9 Rule 9 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — A High Court will not typically interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to condone a gross and negligent delay in a restoration application under the implied provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the, as guided by the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a litigant fails to demonstrate due diligence India Law Library Docid # 2423373
(938) SHRI PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI MANIK SUTRADHAR[TRIPURA HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 34 — In a suit for confirmation of title and recovery of possession where the defendant denies the plaintiff's title, the plaintiff may be required to seek a declaration of title under Section 34 — The High Court set aside a lower court's judgment decreeing a suit for confirmation of title and recovery of possession, finding that the lower court erred in granting the decree when the defendants had denied the plaintiff's title and the plaintiff had not sought a India Law Library Docid # 2423477
(939) ADITYA NARAYAN THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs. PARASNATH THAKUR AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Sections 22-A and 22-B — A Permanent Lok Adalat established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has jurisdiction only over matters relating to public utility services as defined in the Act, and awards passed on matters outside this jurisdiction, particularly those based on compromise regarding ancestral property without prior litigation, are liable to be quashed — The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition, quashing an award passed by India Law Library Docid # 2423615
(940) PREM KUMAR MAHATO AND OTHERS Vs. PUSTAM MAHATO (ABATED) AND OTHERS[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 05-02-2025 Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 — A suit seeking to declare a registered deed as void is governed by the Law of Limitation, and the limitation period begins to run from the date the plaintiff had knowledge of the deed; furthermore, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, being retroactive and not retrospective, applies to properties held benami at the time of its coming into force, but does not affect transactions that ceased to be benami prior to that date — The High Court India Law Library Docid # 2423616