ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(961) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs. RAJAGONDA BHIMGONDA PATIL[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The State of Maharashtra filed a review petition seeking to overturn a 2017 judgment related to land acquisition in Kolhapur — The petition was delayed by 1679 days — The main issue was whether the delay in filing the review petition could be condoned and whether the review petition had merit — The State argued that the delay was due to administrative procedures, the COVID-19 pandemic, and heavy rainfall — They also cited a Supreme Court
India Law Library Docid # 2418771

(962) AZHARALI JAFERALI QURESHI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 332 r/w 34 — The applicant was convicted for obstructing a public servant and causing injury during a raid on his shop for selling unauthorizedly slaughtered mutton without a license — Whether the applicant's conviction was justified given the contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of proper statutory procedure by the prosecution — The defence argued that the prosecution's case was based on unreliable witness testimonies, lack of statutory action, and procedur
India Law Library Docid # 2418772

(963) TANAJI DATTU PADWAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 4 — The applicant was arrested in connection with a case involving the PMLA and other offences — He has been in custody since March 2021 — Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering his long incarceration and the severity of the offences — The applicant argues for bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail, lack of direct benefit from the crime, and long incarceration — The prosecution opposes bail, citing
India Law Library Docid # 2418773

(964) RAJENDIRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 — Section 3(1) — Detention — The primary issue is the inordinate delay between arrest and the issuance of the detention order, which the petitioner argues breaks the "live and proximate link" required for valid detention — The petitioner contends that the delay in passing the detention o
India Law Library Docid # 2419180

(965) M.SUNDARAPANDIAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 14-10-2024
Service Law — Appointment — Post of Asst Professor — The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Folklore and applied for the position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore at Tamil University — The fourth respondent ‘M’, who holds a Ph.D. in Tamil, was appointed instead — The petitioner challenges the appointment of ‘M’ arguing that her qualifications are not equivalent to his and that the selection process was arbitrary and illegal — The petitioner contends that his Ph.D. in Folklore makes
India Law Library Docid # 2419181

(966) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. STERLITE POWER TRANSMISSION LTD[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 38(3)(a) — Late filing of the reply, which was not accepted by the District Commission due to the strict timelines set by the Act, 2019 — The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the non-availability of staff to collect the complaint copy and technical issues with receiving large email attachments — The respondent maintained that the petitioner should have been vigilant and that the delay was due to the petitioner's negligence — The petition was dis
India Law Library Docid # 2419204

(967) JITENDER GUPTA Vs. RITU GUPTA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 2(1)(c)(xv) — Partnership Act, 1932 — Section 46 — The appeal challenges an order dismissing a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a suit for declaration and partition of properties after the dissolution of a partnership firm due to the death of a partner — Whether the suit falls under the ambit of a commercial dispute as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and whether the distribution of assets among legal heirs constitutes a commercial
India Law Library Docid # 2419205

(968) ABDUL HABIB Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 14-10-2024
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Section 3(1) — Detention — Involvement in drug trafficking — The legality of the detention order was challenged on several grounds, including the reliance on previous FIRs, lack of compelling reasons for detention, and failure to provide relevant material to the detenue — The petitioner argued that the detention order was based solely on the police dossier, without proper application of mind, and that the det
India Law Library Docid # 2419283

(969) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 14-10-2024
Motor Accident Claims — Appeal against Compensation — The case involves a road accident, where a pillion rider, was injured and later died — The claimants alleged the accident was due to rash driving by the driver of a Car — The main issues were whether the accident was caused by rash driving, if the petitioners were entitled to compensation, and if the driver had a valid license — The petitioners argued that the deceased's death was due to injuries from the accident, supported by medical testim
India Law Library Docid # 2419288

(970) ROHIT DUTTA Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Section 3 — Preventive Detention — Challenged — The detention order was based on three FIRs, despite him being granted bail in all — The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked application of mind, was based on a verbatim dossier, and did not specify the detention period — Additionally, the case was not referred to the Advisory Board — The detention order was challenged for non-application of mind,
India Law Library Docid # 2419299

(971) RAMSAKHI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Mutation — Dispute over the mutation of names in the revenue records based on a Will purportedly executed by late 'P' — The Tehsildar allowed the mutation, which was later set aside by the SDO and then reinstated by the Additional Commissioner — Whether the will was validly executed and whether the revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to decide on the genuineness of the Will — The petitioner argues that the will's genuineness cannot be adjudicated by revenue courts and cites previous judgme
India Law Library Docid # 2419421

(972) PAWAN KUMAR KURMI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 450, 506 — The petitioner is a practicing advocate who was implicated in a false FIR for various offenses, including assault and murder — He claims he was in court at the time of the incident — The main issues are whether the FIR should be quashed and whether the investigation should be transferred to the CBI — The petitioner argues that he was not present at the crime scene, supported by affidavits and court records — He also
India Law Library Docid # 2419422

(973) AVANISH K. ARJARIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Protection from arrest and changes in the investigation process — The petitioners, who acted as agents for a company that defrauded investors, are seeking protection from arrest and other reliefs — They claim the police are harassing them instead of arresting the main accused — Whether the petitioners can seek a writ of mandamus and quo warranto, prevent their arrest, and request a change in the investigating agency — The petitioners argue that they are being unfairly targeted and request variou
India Law Library Docid # 2419423

(974) GIAN CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Service Law — Regularization — The appellants challenged a judgment that denied their claim for annual increments for services rendered on a contractual basis before regularization — The judgment referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that past contractual service counts only for pension purposes — Whether contractual service should be counted for annual increments upon regularization — The appellants argued that their contractual service should be counted for annual increments, citing prev
India Law Library Docid # 2420114

(975) STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARIJI MADHAJI JOYTAJI THAKOR[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 354(A)(1) and 363 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 8 and 12 — The respondent was convicted for kidnapping and committing sexual offences against an 8-year-old girl — The State of Gujarat appealed for enhancement of the sentence, arguing that the trial court's sentence was inadequate and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence — The State contended that the trial court erred in imposing a lenient sentence and that a harshe
India Law Library Docid # 2420213

(976) SHASHIKANT GHANSHYAMBHAI AGRAVAT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 — Rule 6 — The petitioners, appointed as Multi-Purpose Health Workers, were terminated without a departmental inquiry, which they claim is mandatory under Article 311 of the Constitution of India — Whether the termination without a departmental inquiry and opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice — The petitioners argued that their termination was based on an unrecognized course and was done without following due
India Law Library Docid # 2420223

(977) TEJAS R DOSHI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 — Section 2(2)(e) — The petitioner purchased a property, which was later forfeited under the SAFEMA — The property was originally owned by ‘K’, who bought it with funds from ‘N’, a person detained under COFEPOSA — Whether the petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, is protected under SAFEMA and whether the forfeiture of the property was valid — The petitioner argued that he was a bona fide purchaser who conducted due dilig
India Law Library Docid # 2420224

(978) SAYABOINA VENKATANARAYANA, GUNTUR DST. AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P.[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet, (hereinafter referred to, as „the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC’).
India Law Library Docid # 2420929

(979) GUTTULA JOHNSON Vs. PULLA GOVINDU[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
The appellant herein (connected with O.S.No.162 of 2009 of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada) is the plaintiff in O.S.No.162 of 2009 and the respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The defendant herein filed another suit vide O.S.No.239 of 2009 against the plaintiff herein. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, clubbed both the suits and tried together and passed a common judgment against which, A.S.Nos.105 and 112 of 2012 are filed by the respective plain
India Law Library Docid # 2420925

(980) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KALAKANTI BHAGYA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2024
The claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed MVOP.No.4 of 2022 under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘MV Act’), claiming compensation for the death of Kalakanti Venkateswara Rao in the road accident caused by a Lorry bearing No.AP 37 TJ 1199, driven by its driver -the respondent No.6 herein, rashly and negligently. The respondent No.2 in the claim petition (respondent No.7 herein) is the owner of the offending vehicle as per the Registration Certificate and respondent No.3 (re
India Law Library Docid # 2420926