High Courts judgments

Jharkhand High Court grants anticipatory bail to a housewife framed in a cyber fraud scheme, holding that mere account usage without criminal intent or knowledge of fraudulent transactions does not justify detention. The ruling underscores the need for prima facie evidence of active participation in cyber offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and IT Act.

Gauhati HC rules that motor accident claims pending under Section 163A MV Act must be adjudicated under Section 164’s ₹5 lakh lump-sum limit, even for accidents pre-dating the 2022 amendment. The judgment excludes additional heads like consortium, aligning with Supreme Court precedent to cap compensation uniformly.

Bombay High Court holds that former employees of a government-owned textile mill lose their right to retain residential quarters upon accepting Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The ruling enforces eviction under the Maharashtra Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, emphasizing that settlement agreements requiring vacation of premises are legally binding and must be upheld.

Bombay High Court upholds the retrospective implementation of 6th Pay Commission scales for non-teaching staff in unaided private institutions from 1 January 2006, rejecting financial burden arguments. The ruling reinforces that unaided institutions cannot evade statutory pay revisions under Article 14, impacting thousands of employees in similar institutions.

Bombay High Court rules that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid beyond four years if based on a misinterpretation of 'enterprise' ownership under Section 80-IA. The absence of failure to disclose material facts or escapement of income due to such misinterpretation bars reassessment, impacting tax authorities' powers in similar cases.

Gauhati High Court sets a high threshold for convicting accused in capital punishment cases based on child witness testimony, requiring robust corroboration and reliable recovery evidence. The ruling acquits two accused in a double murder case, reinforcing safeguards against wrongful convictions in serious offenses.

Karnataka High Court rules that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot evade issuing Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to landowners who executed relinquishment deeds in 2012, citing estoppel and the right to property under Article 300A. The judgment underscores that public authorities cannot raise fraud claims after an unreasonable delay, setting a precedent for land acquisition disputes involving TDR schemes.

Gauhati High Court clarifies that quashing under Section 482 CrPC in Domestic Violence Act cases is restricted to relatives not residing with the aggrieved party. The ruling mandates trial for the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, emphasizing that specific allegations of abuse cannot be dismissed at the quashing stage. This sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of DV Act proceedings against immediate family members.

Gauhati High Court rules that voluntary intoxication cannot absolve an accused under Section 376(3) IPC and POCSO Act, upholding a 20-year sentence for raping a minor. The court also directed victim compensation within three months, reinforcing the irrelevance of intoxication as a defence in sexual offences against children.

Gauhati High Court upholds the application of the Inner Line Permit regime to Dimapur, Chumoukedima, and Niuland under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, affirming its continuity under Article 372. The judgment rejects challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 21, clarifying that the permit system constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) to protect tribal rights and public order.

Gauhati High Court rules that land acquisitions for pipeline projects under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act must follow the compensation framework of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The judgment ensures landowners receive fair compensation as per the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, impacting all right-of-user acquisitions by government entities.

Gauhati HC acquitted the accused in a POCSO case, ruling that dying declarations alone cannot sustain conviction without assessing the victim's cognitive fitness, linguistic clarity, and procedural compliance. The judgment sets a precedent requiring courts to apply stricter scrutiny to dying declarations, particularly in cases involving severe injuries or minors.

Bombay High Court clarifies that taxpayers can claim bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act by merely making a provision in the P&L account if litigation is pending, without requiring an express write-off. This ruling reconciles conflicting precedents and eases compliance for businesses awaiting dispute resolution.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that land assigned to an ex-serviceman under undisputed and genuine circumstances must be deleted from the prohibited properties list under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The court directed authorities to comply within two months, emphasizing the violation of Article 14 due to administrative inaction and fraudulent claims.

Bombay High Court holds that only the actual income retained after refunding excess royalties under an Advance Pricing Agreement is taxable under Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. The ruling rejects the Revenue’s attempt to tax notional amounts, reinforcing the real income principle in international taxation and providing relief to multinational enterprises facing transfer pricing adjustments.

Bombay HC rules that mere financial hardship or commercial benefit from streaming does not justify interim payment under Section 9 when contractual performance remains disputed. The arbitral tribunal must first adjudicate contested obligations before interim relief can be granted.

Jharkhand High Court holds that under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cash security deposited as a bail condition must be mandatorily refunded upon acquittal. The ruling quashes lower court orders denying refunds, reinforcing the legal right to restitution of bail amounts post-acquittal for accused persons.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an adult woman’s voluntary decision to leave home, reside in a hostel, and marry of her own choice cannot be overturned via habeas corpus, even when family files missing person reports. This reinforces that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to self-determination in residence and relationships, and police must protect such autonomy - not act as agents of familial control.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case after six years of inaction, with only two witnesses examined and no forensic report available. This ruling reinforces that excessive pre-trial detention without meaningful prosecution progress violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, even in serious sexual offense cases, setting a critical precedent for judicial accountability in delayed POCSO trials.

A registered adoption deed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 conclusively establishes adoptive status for the purpose of compassionate appointment in government service, even when an earlier unregistered adoption existed. This ruling affirms that procedural registration, not mere execution, is the decisive factor in recognizing adoptive rights under service law - protecting the claims of adopted children in public employment.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that continuous ad-hoc service, when later regularized without any break, must be counted toward qualifying service for gratuity under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. This clarifies a critical entitlement for thousands of state employees whose initial appointments were temporary but later formalized, ensuring fair computation of retirement benefits.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to decide pension claims of seasonal Collection Amins within three months of filing, applying Supreme Court rulings that recognize long-term informal service as qualifying for retiral benefits. This ruling extends constitutional protection under natural justice to thousands of temporary agricultural workers historically excluded from formal pension schemes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a magistrate cannot issue a proclamation against an absconder under Section 84 of the BNSS without providing a reasoned order, reinforcing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in criminal proceedings. This sets a binding precedent for all trial courts in Maharashtra, ensuring that even in urgent cases, the right to a fair hearing cannot be bypassed by mechanical police reports.

The Bombay High Court has held that labeling an unlawful sub-tenant as a trespasser does not oust the jurisdiction of rent courts under the Bombay Rent Act. This reinforces that tenancy rights, even when unauthorized, remain governed by rent control statutes - protecting sub-tenants from summary eviction and affirming the Act’s broad protective intent.