High Courts judgments

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a gram panchayat cannot remove encroachments without following Section 56 procedure, restoring trial court’s injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a landlord claiming damages for lost rent must first mitigate the loss and establish the prevailing market rent at the time of breach, failing which the claim under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act fails. The decision affects landlords seeking compensation for tenant-induced utility theft, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on them.

The Karnataka High Court quashed a detention order under the PIT NDPS Act, holding that the detaining authority violated Article 22(5) by not informing the detenu of his right to make a representation. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards for persons subjected to preventive detention across India.

The Orissa HC held that Articles 226/227 writs lie against orders under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, overruling the second-appeal bar. This preserves the court’s supervisory jurisdiction and restores a remedy for parties challenging interim arbitration orders.

Bombay HC held no Letters Patent Act leave needed for admiralty suits if cause of action arises in India, as Section 17 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 repeals that colonial prerequisite, clarifying jurisdiction for claims in India and affecting shipowners.

Indian law governs the SAP support contract, the Delhi High Court held, rejecting the defendant's claim that EU sanctions excuse performance absent proof and ordering restoration of services to keep the refinery running.

The Punjab & Haryana HC held that concealing criminal antecedents in anticipatory bail under BNSS §482 is an independent ground for denial, imposing ₹50,000 costs. It mandates antecedent disclosure for all pre-arrest bail seekers under the new sanhita.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that employees of merged cooperative societies retain seniority from the merger date under Section 149(2-A) of the TNCS Act, 1983, and that a writ petition challenging show-cause notices is premature when a revision remedy exists. The decision safeguards seniority rights in cooperative mergers and curbs premature writ filings.

Absorption of contractual technical staff must consider original qualification at appointment, not just the redesignated post, ruled Calcutta HC. The ruling protects service quality under the National Policy for ICT in Judiciary and impacts district court technical staff.

The Bombay HC held that the Competent Authority erred in rejecting the deemed conveyance application. It ruled acquiescence to separate society formation entitles the petitioner society to proportionate conveyance of 2139.14 sq.mts of layout land, including road FSI benefits, under GR 2018.

Punjab & Haryana HC held that an OBC-NCL candidate cannot be excluded from MBBS merit list due to 'migrant' certificate label, quashing provisional list and directing fresh counselling. This protects OBC reservation benefits for medical aspirants in Chandigarh UT.

The Calcutta HC affirmed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for a major son with 70% disability, ruling that the father's obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC does not cease on attaining majority. The decision reinforces the statutory right of disabled adult children to support, impacting families across West Bengal.

Punjab and Haryana HC held Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot adjudicate without a legal member, quashing its order on a 66 KV line tap and upholding legal member requirement under Sec 86(1)(f) of Electricity Act 2003 for adjudicatory functions.

The Delhi HC held that parties' consensus and an award lacking reasoning justify remand under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ruling clarifies that mutual consent plus deficient awards triggers remission, affecting arbitrators and contracting parties in future disputes.

The Jharkhand High Court held that, for an IPC 376 rape charge based on a false promise to marry, the prosecution must prove the accused's mala fide intention at the time of the promise and a direct nexus to the sexual act. Without such proof, the conviction cannot be sustained. This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard in false-promise rape cases and affects prosecutors, defence counsel and victims alike.

An FIR is not maintainable for a Section 138 NI Act offence; a complaint under Section 142A is required to take cognizance. This bars police from initiating cheque bounce proceedings without a complaint, affecting complainants and the accused.

Once the prosecution proves Section 304-B IPC ingredients, Section 113-B Evidence Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove dowry death; the Jharkhand HC upheld the conviction as the accused failed to rebut.

The Court held that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is directory, not mandatory. It set aside the non-speaking order and remanded for a fresh waiver application to be decided within 15 days by a reasoned speaking order.

The Calcutta HC ruled that a separate suit to set aside a consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is not maintainable; only the court that recorded the decree can decide its validity. This bars parallel litigation and upholds the sanctity of settlement agreements.

The Bombay High Court held IBC Section 96(4) applies retrospectively, lifting the interim moratorium on secured asset recovery from May 26, 2026. This lets banks and financial institutions enforce security interests in insolvency cases without the stay.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a litigant cannot amend its pleadings to contradict an earlier categorical denial, as doing so would undermine judicial discipline. This clarification reinforces the court’s discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to prevent abusive pleading changes, affecting parties seeking to shift defences mid-trial.

The Delhi High Court upheld arrest warrants against an authorized representative for concealing bank assets during execution of an arbitral award, holding that Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC imposes personal liability despite the corporate veil.

The Delhi High Court upheld a GST search under Section 67 at an advocate's office, ruling that advocate-client privilege does not shield personal conduct from investigation. It directed safeguards for examining seized electronic data while permitting the probe to continue, affecting advocates facing tax inquiries.

A witness’s signature in testator’s presence remains valid even with advocate prompting the signing, and delay in filing for probate does not invalidate will absent a statutory limitation, benefiting executors and beneficiaries facing procedural delays.