(321) NAFEES AHMAD AND ANOTHER Vs. SOINUDDIN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — Contents of Appellate Judgment — Points for Determination — Mandatory vs. Directory — Substantial Compliance — The requirement under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC for an appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision is not mandatory to the extent that any non-compliance automatically vitiates the judgment, rendering it wholly void — Whether there has been substantial compliance depends India Law Library Docid # 2424861
(322) PINKI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC — High Court granted b India Law Library Docid # 2424657
(323) MRS. VARSHATAI W/O. SH. SANJAY BAGADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 — Section 3 — Official Language — Use of Additional Language — The prescription of Marathi as the official language for Local Authorities under Section 3 of the 2022 Act does not operate as a prohibition against the use of any other language, such as Urdu (a language included in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution), in addition to Marathi on signboards of a Municipal Council, particularly for the purpose of effective communication wi India Law Library Docid # 2424694
(324) NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA AND ANOTHER Vs. HITESH P. SANGHVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Bar of Limitation — For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is obligated to consider the averments made in the plaint alone — Where, from a plain reading of the plaint averments, the suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected — No requirement exists to allow parties to lead evidence on limitation when the bar is apparent ex-facie from India Law Library Docid # 2424695
(325) CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) — Rejection of Plaint — Mixed Question of Law and Fact — Copyright Act, 1957 & Designs Act, 2000 — The determination of whether an ‘artistic work’ (under Copyright Act, S. 2(c)) falls within the definition of a ‘design’ (under Designs Act, S. 2(d)) and whether copyright protection ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act due to industrial application involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination beyond th India Law Library Docid # 2424696
(326) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424770
(327) RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by relying on evidence (such as sale deeds and a mortgage deed pertaining to different properties) which is insufficient and irrelevant for establishing the fact in issue (oral partition of the suit property) — Such India Law Library Docid # 2424800
(328) JUSTICE V.S. DAVE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF RETD. JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS Vs. KUSUMJIT SIDHU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Service Law — Retired High Court Judges — Reimbursement of Expenses (Medical etc.) — Responsibility of State Government — Clarification of Prior Order — Where a High Court Judge is appointed in one High Court but retires from another High Court due to transfer, the responsibility for reimbursement of expenses (as directed by court orders) lies either with the State Government where the seat of the High Court in which the retired Judge was first appointed is situated, or with the State Government India Law Library Docid # 2425058
(329) REKHA SHARMA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 16, 32 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Recruitment — Judicial Services — Reservation (Horizontal - PwBD; Vertical - EWS/ST) — Minimum Qualifying Marks vs. Cut-off — Adjustment of Candidates — In recruitment processes involving both vertical and horizontal reservations (like for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - PwBD), the non-selection of a PwBD candidate who has secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks but falls below the P India Law Library Docid # 2425060
(330) JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. XX R. 1 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015) & Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 & Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — S. 13(1-A) — Commencement of Limitation for Appeal — Duty to Issue Copy vs. Litigant Diligence — The provision in Or. XX R. 1 CPC, requiring a Commercial Court/Division/Appellate Division to pronounce judgment within 90 days of conclusion of arguments and issue copies thereof to parties (through electronic mail or otherwise), is directory and not mand India Law Library Docid # 2425137
(331) SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. M/S. HALDIA STEELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-04-2025 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 173(8) — Further Investigation — Abuse of Process — Belated and Frivolous Complaints — Directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC into a complaint that is filed after gross, undue, and unexplained delay, and where the admitted allegations do not disclose the necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence, amounts to an abuse of the process of law — This is especially India Law Library Docid # 2425406
(332) PRABHJOT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 — Reservation for Women — Horizontal Reservation — Implementation via advertisement — Where an advertisement was issued subsequent to the notification of the 2020 Rules providing 33% horizontal reservation for women, and specified certain posts (like DSP ‘SC Sports’) as reserved for women (‘SC Sports (Women)’), this reservation specification within the advertisement, implementing the mandate of the 2020 Rules, is valid for that r India Law Library Docid # 2424442
(333) R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJMANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope and Power of High Court — A second appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which it must formulate precisely (S. 100(1), (3), (4)) — The High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to deciding the substantial question(s) of law so formulated (or any other substantial question after recording reasons under the proviso to S. 100(5)) — The High Court should adjudicate the formula India Law Library Docid # 2424443
(334) NEHA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods — The specific prohibition contained in S. 13(7)(i) explicitly disallows ITC facility in respect of purchases India Law Library Docid # 2424444
(335) SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. ADITYA SARDA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Nature and Scope — Power to grant anticipatory bail under S. 438 is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, not as a matter of routine — Its object is to protect individuals from harassment or humiliation, but this must be balanced against the larger societal interest in maintaining law and order and ensuring India Law Library Docid # 2424445
(336) 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Section 16 — Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 — Front-of-Package Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) / Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) System — Public Interest Litigation — Judicial Directions — In a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for implementation of Front-of-Package Warning Labels, where the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) apprised the Court of the ongoing process involving draft regulations for India Law Library Docid # 2425141
(337) JANARDAN RAY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal — Conviction under Section 302 IPC — Principles for Exercise of Power — The power of an appellate court under Section 389 CrPC to suspend the execution of sentence pending appeal, especially in cases involving conviction for serious offences like murder under Section 302 IPC, must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances after recording reasons in writing. India Law Library Docid # 2425140
(338) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector — An Additional Collector is competent and possesses the requisite jurisdiction to grant permission for the transfer of land belonging to a member of an indigenous tribe under Section 165(6)(ii), where Section 11 includes 'Additional Collectors' within the class of 'Collector', and a specific, pre India Law Library Docid # 2424370
(339) RAKESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. HDFC BANK LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Contract Act, 1872 — S. 28 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Contractual Clauses — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Validity — Parties to a contract, including an employment contract, are free to agree on conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon a specific court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of other courts which might otherwise be competent under S. 20, CPC — Such a clause is valid and enforceable provided that: (i) it does not absolutely restrict a party from enforcing rights through usual lega India Law Library Docid # 2424371
(340) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Financial assistance received or receivable by dependents of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Rules of 2006, specifically under the head equivalent to ‘pay and other allowances’ last drawn by the deceased, must be deducted/excluded while computing compensation for loss of income/dependency under the Motor India Law Library Docid # 2424372