# Case Law

The Bombay High Court, in a recent judgment delivered on March 11, 2025, in the matter of Shri Uday Laxman Pawar Versus The Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. , 2025:BHC-AS:11480-DB ,  has reaffirmed the crucial legal principle that unexplained and inordinate delay in approaching the court can be a significant impediment to seeking legal remedies , even in cases involving claims of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) for employment and rehabilitation. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, decisively dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Pawar, emphasizing the doctrine of delay and laches as a fundamental bar to the maintainability of his claim. The petitioner, claiming to be a PAP due to the acquisition of his father's agricultural land for a public irrigation scheme in 1975, sought to challenge a 1997 letter and a 2002 resolution by the Chiplun Nagar Parishad (Respondent No. 7) that denied hi...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Citation: 2025 INSC 338 (Reportable) Background This appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 269 of 2017. The High Court dismissed the revision application, thereby upholding the order dated 01.04.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014, which had dismissed the discharge applications filed by the appellants. Facts of the Case Appellant No. 1, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther, was contracted for interior decoration of a shop in Pune. Appellant No. 2, Nimesh Pravinchandra Shah, was the Store Operation Manager of M/s. Intergold Gems Private Limited, which leased the shop. Incident On 27.09.2013, around 9:00 PM, two employees of Appellant No. 1, Salauddin Shaikh and Arun Sharma, were working on the shop's signboard. T...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...

The Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. , Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2011, 2025 INSC 337 , highlights the complexities of property transactions involving government land and the critical distinction between an agreement to lease and a registered lease deed.  This case, which spanned decades, revolved around a plot of land in Delhi, originally subject to an agreement to lease between the Delhi Improvement Trust (now DDA) and M/s Mehta Constructions in 1957. A crucial aspect of the case was that the formal lease deed was never executed due to non-compliance by M/s Mehta Constructions. Clause 24 of the agreement explicitly stated that the agreement would not confer any rights, title, or interest until the lease was executed and registered. Subsequently, M/s Mehta Constructions entered into an agreement to sell the plot to M/s Pure Drinks, who later faced liquidation. In the liquidation proceedings, S.G.G. Towers purchased the plot in an au...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGH vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. Citation: 2025 INSC 335 (Reportable) This significant judgment from the Supreme Court grapples with the intricate interplay between the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), in a deeply disturbing case involving the sexual assault of a minor daughter by her own father. The core legal questions revolved around the propriety of conviction under both statutes and the extent of judicial discretion in awarding life imprisonment. Dual Conviction and the Precedence of Law The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, as well as Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, for the sexual assault of his 9-year-old daughter. The High Court affirmed the conviction but modified the life imprisonment sentence under the IPC to extend for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. T...

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIR vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI). Citation: 2025 INSC 281 (Reportable) Factual Aspects The case of Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) revolves around an appeal against the High Court's order to stay a discharge order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant, Sudershan Singh Wazir, was accused in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 120B IPC read with 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge discharged Wazir, subject to him furnishing a personal bond. The High Court of Delhi stayed this discharge order and directed Wazir to surrender to judicial custody, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. Submissions Shri Siddharth Luthra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the High Court should not have stayed the discharge...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. BALVEER SINGH. Citation: 2025 INSC 261 (Reportable) Case Overview The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court's decision to acquit Balveer Singh, who the Trial Court initially convicted of murdering his wife, Birendra Kumari, and attempting to conceal evidence, offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case largely depended on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the couple's daughter, Rani, who was a child witness. Prosecution's Case The prosecution's case was that Balveer Singh murdered Birendra Kumari by slamming her to the floor and choking her. He then attempted to conceal the crime by cremating her body in a field. Jatan Bai, Balveer Singh’s sister, was initially a co-accused, charged with aiding in the murder and cover-up. Initial Investigation The inv...

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM. Citation: 2025 INSC 260 (Reportable) Background This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, which dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 88/2007 filed by the appellant. Criminal Appeal No. 88/2007 was filed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 16(K)/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000.00, again with a default stipulation. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine o...

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...