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

Gang Rape Conviction Sustainable Against a Single Accused under Section 376DA IPC: Delhi High Court affirms primacy of a consistent child-victim testimony and limits of DNA lapses in Praveen @ Lallu v. State (2025)

Gang Rape Conviction Sustainable Against a Single Accused under Section 376DA IPC: Delhi High Court affirms primacy of a consistent child-victim testimony and limits of DNA lapses in Praveen @ Lallu v. State (2025)

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Gang Rape Conviction Sustainable Against a Single Accused under Section 376DA IPC: Delhi High Court affirms primacy of a consistent child-victim testimony and limits of DNA lapses Introduction The...

      Delhi High Court on Internet-Based Territorial Jurisdiction and Co‑registered Marks: Aggregator Listings and Passive Websites Don’t Confer Jurisdiction; “Doctor” Held Non‑Distinctive for Disinfectants

Delhi High Court on Internet-Based Territorial Jurisdiction and Co‑registered Marks: Aggregator Listings and Passive Websites Don’t Confer Jurisdiction; “Doctor” Held Non‑Distinctive for Disinfectants

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Internet Listings Don’t Create Jurisdiction; Co‑Registration Bars Infringement: The Delhi High Court’s Roadmap for Online IP Suits and Composite Marks Introduction In Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt...
Primacy of Statutorily-Sanctioned Layout-Plan Amendments over Private Compromise:
Delhi High Court Affirms MCD’s Exclusive Authority to Alter Land-Use Consistent with the Master Plan

Primacy of Statutorily-Sanctioned Layout-Plan Amendments over Private Compromise: Delhi High Court Affirms MCD’s Exclusive Authority to Alter Land-Use Consistent with the Master Plan

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Primacy of Statutorily-Sanctioned Layout-Plan Amendments over Private Compromise: Mohit Goel v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025 DHC 6992) 1. Introduction The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Mohit Goel and...
“Consultant-Negligence” as a Ground to Set-Aside GST Orders – A Comment on Chandrasekaran v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

“Consultant-Negligence” as a Ground to Set-Aside GST Orders – A Comment on Chandrasekaran v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Date: Aug 20, 2025
“Consultant-Negligence” as a Recognised Ground for Setting-Aside GST Assessment Orders – Madras High Court’s Decision in Chandrasekaran v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) 1. Introduction Chandrasekaran,...
Lokayukta’s Power to Probe Pre‑Appointment Recruitment Misconduct Reaffirmed: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka HC, 2025)

Lokayukta’s Power to Probe Pre‑Appointment Recruitment Misconduct Reaffirmed: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka HC, 2025)

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Lokayukta’s Power to Probe Pre‑Appointment Recruitment Misconduct Reaffirmed Case: DADAPEER BHANUVALLI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA | Court: Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench | Date: 19 August 2025 |...
Re-defining the Scope of Judicial Review in Service Disciplinary Matters – The “K.M. Gangadhar Standard”

Re-defining the Scope of Judicial Review in Service Disciplinary Matters – The “K.M. Gangadhar Standard”

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Re-defining the Scope of Judicial Review in Service Disciplinary Matters – The “K.M. Gangadhar Standard” Introduction Writ Appeal No. 600 of 2025, Sri K.M. Gangadhar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.,...
Fiscal Prudence over Formal Equality: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Fifth Pay Commission Pension Benefits

Fiscal Prudence over Formal Equality: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Fifth Pay Commission Pension Benefits

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Fiscal Prudence over Formal Equality: P&H High Court Affirms 01-12-2011 Cut-off for Fifth Pay Commission Benefits in Ram Lal Chumber & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 1. Introduction The Punjab &...
“Foundation First”: Bombay High Court Mandates Specific Pleadings and Affidavit for Secondary Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

“Foundation First”: Bombay High Court Mandates Specific Pleadings and Affidavit for Secondary Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Date: Aug 20, 2025
“Foundation First”: Bombay High Court Mandates Specific Pleadings and Affidavit for Secondary Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 1. Introduction In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation...
Delhi High Court Re-Affirms “Partial-Severability” under Section 34 and Upholds Government-Linked Pricing of APM Gas

Delhi High Court Re-Affirms “Partial-Severability” under Section 34 and Upholds Government-Linked Pricing of APM Gas

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Delhi High Court Re-Affirms “Partial-Severability” under Section 34 and Upholds Government-Linked Pricing of APM Gas 1. Introduction In Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. GAIL (India)...
“Substance over Procedure” in Public Employment:  Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) and the Compulsory Regularisation of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

“Substance over Procedure” in Public Employment: Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) and the Compulsory Regularisation of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

Date: Aug 20, 2025
“Substance over Procedure” in Public Employment: Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) and the Compulsory Regularisation of Long-Serving Daily Wagers 1. Introduction CWP No. 3189 of 2025...
“The Pre-Deceased Spouse Exception” – Karnataka High Court Clarifies Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment

“The Pre-Deceased Spouse Exception” – Karnataka High Court Clarifies Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment

Date: Aug 20, 2025
“The Pre-Deceased Spouse Exception” – Karnataka High Court Clarifies Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment 1. Introduction The decision in Smt. Mantavva & Anr. v. The Divisional Controller,...
Stay‑Induced Delay as an Independent Article 21 Ground for Bail under UAPA: Commentary on Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India (2025 KER 61965)

Stay‑Induced Delay as an Independent Article 21 Ground for Bail under UAPA: Commentary on Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India (2025 KER 61965)

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Stay‑Induced Delay as an Independent Article 21 Ground for Bail under UAPA Case: Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India (2025 KER 61965) Court: High Court of Kerala (Division Bench) Bench: Raja...
Breathalyzer Outputs as Electronic Records: Patna High Court Mandates Section 65B Certification and Clinical Corroboration; Informant Cannot Investigate — Manoj Murmu v. State of Bihar

Breathalyzer Outputs as Electronic Records: Patna High Court Mandates Section 65B Certification and Clinical Corroboration; Informant Cannot Investigate — Manoj Murmu v. State of Bihar

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Breathalyzer Outputs as Electronic Records: Patna High Court Mandates Section 65B Certification and Clinical Corroboration; Informant Cannot Investigate Introduction This commentary examines the...
PCDA(P) Cannot Alter Medical Board Disability Assessments; Rounding-off Applies to Superannuated Soldiers: J&K High Court affirms AFT in Union of India v. Shukar Singh

PCDA(P) Cannot Alter Medical Board Disability Assessments; Rounding-off Applies to Superannuated Soldiers: J&K High Court affirms AFT in Union of India v. Shukar Singh

Date: Aug 20, 2025
PCDA(P) Cannot Alter Medical Board Disability Assessments; Rounding-off Applies to Superannuated Soldiers: J&K High Court affirms AFT in Union of India v. Shukar Singh Introduction In Union of India...
Suleman v. State of H.P. — The “Intent-and-Incitement” Threshold for Section 152 BNS (Sedition-type) Offences

Suleman v. State of H.P. — The “Intent-and-Incitement” Threshold for Section 152 BNS (Sedition-type) Offences

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Suleman v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025 HHC 27866) Commentary: The High Court Re-defines the Reach of Section 152, Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 Introduction The Himachal Pradesh High Court,...
Delhi High Court Mandates Pre‑Bid Challenges for PAC Tenders: Non‑Participants Lack Locus to Contest Procurement

Delhi High Court Mandates Pre‑Bid Challenges for PAC Tenders: Non‑Participants Lack Locus to Contest Procurement

Date: Aug 20, 2025
Pre‑Bid Challenges Mandatory for PAC Tenders: Delhi High Court Clarifies Locus and Timelines for Judicial Review in Public Procurement Case: Rotoffset Corporation v. Security Printing and Minting...
“Sick and Infirm” Is Not an Automatic Bypass to PMLA’s Twin Conditions: Delhi High Court’s Gravity-Centric Bail Standard in Mega Economic Offences

“Sick and Infirm” Is Not an Automatic Bypass to PMLA’s Twin Conditions: Delhi High Court’s Gravity-Centric Bail Standard in Mega Economic Offences

Date: Aug 20, 2025
“Sick and Infirm” Is Not an Automatic Bypass to PMLA’s Twin Conditions: Delhi High Court’s Gravity-Centric Bail Standard in Mega Economic Offences Introduction In ARVIND DHAM v. Directorate of...
“The Autonomy Cohabitation Doctrine” –  Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms an Adult’s Right to Live-in with a Married Partner

“The Autonomy Cohabitation Doctrine” – Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms an Adult’s Right to Live-in with a Married Partner

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“The Autonomy Cohabitation Doctrine” – Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms an Adult’s Right to Live-in with a Married Partner 1. Introduction In Neeke Lal Mehra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025...
"Once a State Forest, Always a Forest": Karnataka High Court’s boundary-based test, strict Section 20 exception, and a blueprint for unified geo-spatial land governance

"Once a State Forest, Always a Forest": Karnataka High Court’s boundary-based test, strict Section 20 exception, and a blueprint for unified geo-spatial land governance

Date: Aug 19, 2025
"Once a State Forest, Always a Forest": Karnataka High Court’s boundary-based test, strict Section 20 exception, and a blueprint for unified geo-spatial land governance Introduction In M/s Prakruti...
Pre-decisional Hearing Is Mandatory Before Removing Gram Panchayat Administrators Appointed After Dissolution: Rajasthan High Court’s Due Process Mandate under Section 38, Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Pre-decisional Hearing Is Mandatory Before Removing Gram Panchayat Administrators Appointed After Dissolution: Rajasthan High Court’s Due Process Mandate under Section 38, Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Date: Aug 19, 2025
State of Rajasthan (2025 RJ-JP 31054), holding that pre-decisional hearing is mandatory before removal of Panchayat Administrators appointed after dissolution, and reiterating constitutional...
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