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

The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

Date: Aug 19, 2025
The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 1. Introduction In A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala (2025 KER...
“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced

“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced Introduction In DR. AMIT KUMAR SINGAL v....
“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions

“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions 1. Introduction Mirtunaj Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 MHC 2029) presented the...
Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions

Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions Case: Eshwaramma W/o Naganagowda v. State of Karnataka...
Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule

Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule 1. Introduction Harbajan Singh v. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (2025 RJ-JP 31247) is a seminal pronouncement of the...
“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (2025)

“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (2025)

Date: Aug 15, 2025
“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal...
Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform

Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform Introduction This...

        Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court
        Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction
        Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence

Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence Chotti Bee w/o Syed Rasool v....
Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools

Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools 1. Introduction Mar Baselios School v. State of Kerala (decided on 14 August 2025) is a clubbed...
Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Introduction In Deul...
Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant

Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant

Date: Aug 14, 2025
Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant Case: Ganga Jogta v. Nand Lal (deceased) through LRs, CMPMO...
Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC: Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik (Orissa High Court, 12 Aug 2025)

Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC: Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik (Orissa High Court, 12 Aug 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik, DSREF No. 2 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 62 of 2024 (Orissa High Court,...
Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC

Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC

Date: Aug 12, 2025
Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC Introduction This commentary examines the Bombay High...
Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition: Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (2025 DHC 6790)

Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition: Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (2025 DHC 6790)

Date: Aug 12, 2025
Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 DHC 6790 Citation: 2025 DHC 6790, Delhi High Court...
Primacy of Pre-Independence Caste Records & Limits on the Affinity Test: Commentary on Akshata Dongare v. Caste Scrutiny Committee (2025)

Primacy of Pre-Independence Caste Records & Limits on the Affinity Test: Commentary on Akshata Dongare v. Caste Scrutiny Committee (2025)

Date: Aug 12, 2025
Primacy of Pre-Independence Caste Records & Limits on the Affinity Test Commentary on Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare & Anr. v. Vice-Chairman, ST Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (Bom...
“Lack of Inquiry” vs. “Inadequate Inquiry” – Madras High Court Narrows Section 263 Jurisdiction in Arul Industries v. ACIT (2025)

“Lack of Inquiry” vs. “Inadequate Inquiry” – Madras High Court Narrows Section 263 Jurisdiction in Arul Industries v. ACIT (2025)

Date: Aug 12, 2025
“Lack of Inquiry” vs. “Inadequate Inquiry” – Madras High Court Narrows Section 263 Jurisdiction in Arul Industries v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2025) 1. Introduction Court & Date: Madras...
Sanction Defects under the PC Act Are Harmless Without Failure of Justice: Kerala High Court in Luckose Joseph v. State of Kerala

Sanction Defects under the PC Act Are Harmless Without Failure of Justice: Kerala High Court in Luckose Joseph v. State of Kerala

Date: Aug 9, 2025
Sanction Defects under the PC Act Are Harmless Without Failure of Justice: Kerala High Court in Luckose Joseph v. State of Kerala Decision: Kerala High Court, 8 August 2025, A. Badharudeen, J....
“Regular Service in the Grade” Extends to Service in an Analogous Post: The Bhupinder Kumar Malik Precedent

“Regular Service in the Grade” Extends to Service in an Analogous Post: The Bhupinder Kumar Malik Precedent

Date: Aug 9, 2025
“Regular Service in the Grade” Extends to Service in an Analogous Post (Commentary on Delhi High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Kumar Malik v. Union of India, 2025 DHC 6630-DB) 1. Introduction This...
Section 74(2) Approval as the Jurisdictional Gatekeeper for SSFC Trials of Civil Offences; Mental Illness Alone Does Not Bar Trial: Commentary on Anil Kumar Upadhaya v. UOI (2025 DHC 6617-DB)

Section 74(2) Approval as the Jurisdictional Gatekeeper for SSFC Trials of Civil Offences; Mental Illness Alone Does Not Bar Trial: Commentary on Anil Kumar Upadhaya v. UOI (2025 DHC 6617-DB)

Date: Aug 9, 2025
Section 74(2) Approval as the Jurisdictional Gatekeeper for SSFC Trials of Civil Offences; Mental Illness Alone Does Not Bar Trial: Commentary on Anil Kumar Upadhaya v. UOI (2025 DHC 6617-DB)...
Mere Presence and Generic Exhortation Are Insufficient for Section 302/34 IPC: Allahabad High Court’s Rigorous Threshold for Common Intention in Vijai @ Babban v. State of U.P.

Mere Presence and Generic Exhortation Are Insufficient for Section 302/34 IPC: Allahabad High Court’s Rigorous Threshold for Common Intention in Vijai @ Babban v. State of U.P.

Date: Aug 9, 2025
Mere Presence and Generic Exhortation Are Insufficient for Section 302/34 IPC: Allahabad High Court’s Rigorous Threshold for Common Intention Case: Vijai @ Babban v. State of U.P., 2025:AHC:134249-DB...
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