Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments
  • Acts

All High Courts Case Commentaries

Sanctioned Overtime Bills Constitute a “Pre-Existing Right” – 
            Bombay High Court Re-defines the Reach of Section 33(C)(2) ID Act

Sanctioned Overtime Bills Constitute a “Pre-Existing Right” – Bombay High Court Re-defines the Reach of Section 33(C)(2) ID Act

Date: Jun 14, 2025
Sanctioned Overtime Bills Constitute a “Pre-Existing Right” – Bombay High Court Clarifies the Executory Scope of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Introduction In The...
P&H High Court tempers Arnesh Kumar reliance and elevates environmental gravity: Anticipatory bail denied in illegal river mining case

P&H High Court tempers Arnesh Kumar reliance and elevates environmental gravity: Anticipatory bail denied in illegal river mining case

Date: Jun 14, 2025
P&H High Court tempers Arnesh Kumar reliance and elevates environmental gravity: Anticipatory bail denied in illegal river mining case Introduction In Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of Punjab...
Forwarding Social-Media Content & Pre-Trial Liberty: 
            The First Bail Parameters under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Forwarding Social-Media Content & Pre-Trial Liberty: The First Bail Parameters under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Date: Jun 13, 2025
Forwarding Social-Media Content & Pre-Trial Liberty: The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Blueprint for Bail under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1. Introduction In Dr. Nasheem Bano...
“Nocturnal Summons & Women’s Liberty” – Allahabad High Court’s Fresh Mandate on Transit-Anticipatory Bail and Police Notices

“Nocturnal Summons & Women’s Liberty” – Allahabad High Court’s Fresh Mandate on Transit-Anticipatory Bail and Police Notices

Date: Jun 13, 2025
“Nocturnal Summons & Women’s Liberty” – Allahabad High Court’s Fresh Mandate on Transit-Anticipatory Bail and Police Notices Introduction In Sushila Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) &...
Monetary Compensation Prevails Over Automatic Reinstatement for Illegally Terminated Contractual Workers – Commentary on MPMKVV Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Kumar Gupta (MP HC 2025)

Monetary Compensation Prevails Over Automatic Reinstatement for Illegally Terminated Contractual Workers – Commentary on MPMKVV Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Kumar Gupta (MP HC 2025)

Date: Jun 13, 2025
Monetary Compensation Prevails Over Automatic Reinstatement for Illegally Terminated Contractual Workers Comprehensive Commentary on MPMKVV Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Surendra Kumar Gupta (High Court of...
No Arbitration Reference After Closure of Written Statement – Commentary on R. Santosh v. One97 Communications Ltd. (2025 DHC 4963-DB)

No Arbitration Reference After Closure of Written Statement – Commentary on R. Santosh v. One97 Communications Ltd. (2025 DHC 4963-DB)

Date: Jun 13, 2025
No Arbitration Reference After Closure of Written Statement – A Detailed Commentary on Delhi High Court’s Decision in R. Santosh v. One97 Communications Ltd. (2025 DHC 4963-DB) 1. Introduction The...
Remission Rights Clarified: Mandatory Separate Consideration of “Good-Behaviour” Remission under Rule 166(i)(e) – Commentary on Arun Kumar Alva v. State of Karnataka (2025)

Remission Rights Clarified: Mandatory Separate Consideration of “Good-Behaviour” Remission under Rule 166(i)(e) – Commentary on Arun Kumar Alva v. State of Karnataka (2025)

Date: Jun 11, 2025
Remission Rights Clarified: Mandatory Separate Consideration of “Good-Behaviour” Remission under Rule 166(i)(e) Commentary on Arun Kumar Alva v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court, WP No. 14015...
Finality over Residence-Based Reservations in PG Medical Seats:  Avijit Chander v. U.T. Chandigarh (2025)

Finality over Residence-Based Reservations in PG Medical Seats: Avijit Chander v. U.T. Chandigarh (2025)

Date: Jun 11, 2025
Finality over Residence-Based Reservations in PG Medical Seats: A Commentary on Avijit Chander & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., 2025 PHHC 75822 1. Introduction For more than a decade,...
“Possession First”:  Delhi HC clarifies that restitution of immovable property is a
            pre-condition to monetary recovery and that disputed possession
            issues defeat a summary-judgment motion under Order XIII-A
            –  Commentary on Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (2025 DHC 4932)

“Possession First”: Delhi HC clarifies that restitution of immovable property is a pre-condition to monetary recovery and that disputed possession issues defeat a summary-judgment motion under Order XIII-A – Commentary on Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (2025 DHC 4932)

Date: Jun 10, 2025
“Possession First” – Delhi High Court reiterates that a purchaser must return or establish transfer of possession before demanding refund, and that such contested possession issues preclude summary...
Bombay High Court Clarifies Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act to Statutory Local Bodies and Mandates Forfeiture Assessment under Section 4(6)

Bombay High Court Clarifies Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act to Statutory Local Bodies and Mandates Forfeiture Assessment under Section 4(6)

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Bombay High Court Clarifies Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Zilla Parishad Employees and Prescribes Mandatory Consideration of Forfeiture under Section 4(6) Introduction The Nagpur...
Bombay High Court Tightens the Specificity Requirement for Prosecuting Matrimonial Relatives under Section 498-A IPC

Bombay High Court Tightens the Specificity Requirement for Prosecuting Matrimonial Relatives under Section 498-A IPC

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Bombay High Court Tightens the Specificity Requirement for Prosecuting Matrimonial Relatives under Section 498-A IPC Introduction In Sandeep s/o Devidas Aware v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal...
Refining Income-Tax Deduction in Motor Accident Compensation – Delhi High Court clarifies methodology in Universal Sompo v. Dinesh Kumar Singh (2025)

Refining Income-Tax Deduction in Motor Accident Compensation – Delhi High Court clarifies methodology in Universal Sompo v. Dinesh Kumar Singh (2025)

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Refining Income-Tax Deduction in Motor Accident Compensation – Delhi High Court clarifies methodology in Universal Sompo v. Dinesh Kumar Singh (2025) 1. Introduction The Delhi High Court’s decision...
Strict Compliance with Section 138(b): Delhi High Court Re-asserts the Necessity of a Specific Demand Notice in Cheque Dishonour Cases

Strict Compliance with Section 138(b): Delhi High Court Re-asserts the Necessity of a Specific Demand Notice in Cheque Dishonour Cases

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Strict Compliance with Section 138(b): Delhi High Court Re-asserts the Necessity of a Specific Demand Notice in Cheque Dishonour Cases Introduction In Barun Bhanot v. M/s Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt....
“The Srinagar Intent-Possession Doctrine” –  J&K High Court clarifies that (i) an overt act toward a woman does not amount to “outraging modesty” under Section 354 IPC unless accompanied by a discernible intent or knowledge to outrage, and (ii) criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC is not attracted in the absence of clear proof that the complainant was in exclusive possession of the disputed property.

“The Srinagar Intent-Possession Doctrine” – J&K High Court clarifies that (i) an overt act toward a woman does not amount to “outraging modesty” under Section 354 IPC unless accompanied by a discernible intent or knowledge to outrage, and (ii) criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC is not attracted in the absence of clear proof that the complainant was in exclusive possession of the disputed property.

Date: Jun 7, 2025
“The Srinagar Intent-Possession Doctrine” A Comprehensive Commentary on Raja Asif Farooq & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. (J&K High Court, 06 June 2025) 1. Introduction In Raja Asif Farooq &...
“Particularised Apprehension” as the New Threshold for Look-Out Circulars: 
            Delhi High Court in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India (2025)

“Particularised Apprehension” as the New Threshold for Look-Out Circulars: Delhi High Court in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India (2025)

Date: Jun 7, 2025
“Particularised Apprehension” as the New Threshold for Look-Out Circulars: Delhi High Court in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 DHC 4924) 1. Introduction In Vineet Gupta v. Union of India...
BPL Certificate Sufficiency & Supernumerary Accommodation – A Detailed Commentary on Sahil Kumar v. HPSEB Ltd. (2025 HHC 18125)

BPL Certificate Sufficiency & Supernumerary Accommodation – A Detailed Commentary on Sahil Kumar v. HPSEB Ltd. (2025 HHC 18125)

Date: Jun 7, 2025
BPL Certificate Sufficiency & Supernumerary Accommodation: A Commentary on Sahil Kumar v. HPSEB Ltd. (2025 HHC 18125) 1. Introduction Case Name: Sahil Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity...
No Estoppel Against Statutory Recruitment Rules: Commentary on Yashwant Mandhotra v. High Court of H.P. (2025)

No Estoppel Against Statutory Recruitment Rules: Commentary on Yashwant Mandhotra v. High Court of H.P. (2025)

Date: Jun 7, 2025
No Estoppel Against Statutory Recruitment Rules: Service Rendered in District Judiciary Not Countable for In-House High Court Promotions Commentary on: Yashwant Mandhotra v. High Court of Himachal...
“Medical Evidence Alone Is Not Enough” – Basit Bashir v. UT of J&K and the Re-Statement of Courts’ Duty to Filter Charges at the Pre-Trial Stage

“Medical Evidence Alone Is Not Enough” – Basit Bashir v. UT of J&K and the Re-Statement of Courts’ Duty to Filter Charges at the Pre-Trial Stage

Date: Jun 7, 2025
“Medical Evidence Alone Is Not Enough” – Basit Bashir v. UT of J&K and the Re-Statement of Courts’ Duty to Filter Charges at the Pre-Trial Stage 1. Introduction Basit Bashir v. Union Territory of...
Sole Legatee as “Executor by Necessary Implication”: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Probate Eligibility under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act

Sole Legatee as “Executor by Necessary Implication”: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Probate Eligibility under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act

Date: Jun 7, 2025
Sole Legatee as “Executor by Necessary Implication”: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Probate Eligibility under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act Introduction In Sri Jayaram B S v. NIL (MFA No....
“Vacancy-Centric Roster Rule” – Himachal Pradesh High Court reinforces 50:50 Direct Recruit–Promotee Balance (Dr. Swati Aggarwal v. State of H.P., 2025)

“Vacancy-Centric Roster Rule” – Himachal Pradesh High Court reinforces 50:50 Direct Recruit–Promotee Balance (Dr. Swati Aggarwal v. State of H.P., 2025)

Date: Jun 6, 2025
“Vacancy-Centric Roster Rule” – Himachal Pradesh High Court Reinforces 50:50 Direct Recruit–Promotee Balance Comprehensive Commentary on Dr. Swati Aggarwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert