India Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

India Case Law

  • 11 May 2026

    GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

    The Court held that the charges under ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act and under Section 506 r/w Section 34 IPC were unsustainable because the FIR and chargesheet showed the alleged abuses and threats occurred within the four walls of a residential house without public gaze or independent public witnesses, and there was no sufficient averment of intent to cause alarm or of common intention; accordingly the FIR No.42 of 2021 and the charge-sheet were quashed and the impugned orders set aside.

    • Charge framing
    • Fir quashing
    • Offences under sc/st act ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
    • Section 506 ipc
    • Section 34 ipc
    • Place within public view

  • 8 May 2026

    THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus RANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

    The High Court Division Bench erred by reappreciating evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities which were founded on relevant material and, after independent forensic verification by Bihar Police, established that the two identities were the same person; the dismissal was the result of a fair and lawful enquiry and is restored; the Patna District appointment (Order No.10524 of 2007) and the appointment of "Santosh Kumar" as Constable in Bihar are quashed; competent police authorities are directed to examine and take…

    • Dismissal from service
    • Disciplinary proceedings
    • Judicial review
    • Forgery
    • Impersonation
    • Dual employment

  • 8 May 2026

    INDIAN RAILWAYS versus WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

    The Supreme Court held that Indian Railways does not qualify as a deemed distribution licensee under the Electricity Act because its electric traction and distribution installations are confined to captive operational use and do not perform the statutory function of supplying electricity to consumers in an area of supply; accordingly Indian Railways is a consumer for electricity procured through open access and is liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge; draft legislative proposals do not alter this statutory position.

    • Deemed distribution licensee
    • Cross-subsidy surcharge
    • Additional surcharge
    • Open access
    • Appropriate government
    • Section 11 railways act 1989

  • 8 May 2026

    ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA versus JAGAT DHARI

    Dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution does not merge the trial court decree into an appellate order; permitting deposit in execution proceedings to test bona fides does not preclude a Section 28 application; courts exercising Section 28 must consider all relevant circumstances and balance equities, and may rescind the contract or grant extension on terms including compensation; because the lower courts failed to apply these principles, their orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

    • Rescission of the contract
    • Doctrine of merger
    • Delay in deposit of the balance sale consideration
    • Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale
    • Execution and registration of sale deed
    • Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution

  • 7 May 2026

    DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

    Regulation 6.32 does not confer an absolute right to recover depreciation from the distribution licensee or consumers for the full technical useful life where regulatory approvals and the PPA limited the operational and tariff recovery period; consumer interest under Section 61(d) and Regulation 4.1 confines tariff entitlement to the period approved in the PPA, and therefore depreciation recovery was properly limited to the period up to March-2018; APTEL erred in directing recovery over fifteen years and its judgment was set aside, restoring the Commission's order dated 11.11.2019.

    • Depreciation
    • Tariff determination
    • Consumer interest
    • Power purchase agreement
    • True-up proceedings

  • 6 May 2026

    NEETU SOLVENTS versus VINEET NAGAR & ORS.

    The appeals are allowed and the NGT orders directing closure of the appellant formaldehyde manufacturing units are set aside because the units were established and operated pursuant to CTE and CTO granted by the respective PCBs, the PCBs were under a misconception about the need for prior EC, the units applied for EC within the time directed by PCB office orders and the EC process remains pending; accordingly the ratio of Pahwa Plastics applies and the units shall be allowed to operate pending a decision on their EC applications.

    • Environmental clearance
    • Eia 2006 notification
    • Consent to establish
    • Consent to operate
    • Pollution control board
    • Ex-post facto environmental clearance

  • 6 May 2026

    HABBAN SHAH versus SHERUDDIN

    The decree of specific performance dated 31.10.2012, which conditioned execution of the sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration within three months, became inexecutable because the plaintiff-respondent failed to deposit the balance within the stipulated period and did not seek extension in time; consequently the contract stood rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the execution objections were upheld, with directions for refund of earnest money with interest.

    • Specific performance
    • Executability of decree
    • Conditional decree
    • Balance sale consideration
    • Readiness and willingness
    • Equitable relief

  • 5 May 2026

    ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS

    On the facts the Court found EIL to be the dominant actor in the group and that the three lessee subsidiaries were fronts; lifting the corporate veil was appropriate; the development rights/lands in question were to be treated in light of that economic reality, the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma were restored, GNIDA was disentitled to penal interest due to its failure to monitor and submit timely claims, GNIDA must recalculate dues excluding penal interest/penal charges and Alpha and Roma must clear principal dues over 24 months and then effect registrations as sub-lessees; timelines for…

    • Lifting of corporate veil
    • Corporate insolvency resolution process (cirp)
    • Assets of subsidiaries
    • Leasehold rights
    • Homebuyers' representation (s.25a(3a) ibc)
    • Approbation and reprobation

  • 4 May 2026

    SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

    The High Court erred in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct registration of an FIR when efficacious and sequential statutory remedies under the BNSS/CrPC were available and had not been exhausted; the writ petition was premature, the impugned interim order was set aside and FIR No.0194/2025 was quashed, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

    • Article 226
    • Fir registration
    • Alternative remedies
    • Bharatiya nyaya sanhita 2023
    • Writ jurisdiction

  • 4 May 2026

    RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus LAVANSHU SANKHLA & ORS.

    The relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application; candidates must possess the requisite law degree by that date, and the press note of 29.11.2024 and deletion of the proviso to Rule 12 confirm that candidates appearing in the final year are not eligible.

    • Assistant prosecution officer examination
    • Minimum essential qualification
    • Law degree
    • Aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum
    • Application form
    • Advertisement