High Courts judgments

The Telangana High Court held that an MLA who fights LS polls on another party’s ticket is deemed to have given up membership under the Tenth Schedule, resulting in disqualification from the date of nomination, impacting legislators.

Gauhati HC held that on a cyber complaint of a suspicious transaction, a bank may only lien that sum and let the account holder use the rest. It protects traders’ livelihood under Article 21 by barring arbitrary full-account freezes.

The Gauhati High Court held that arrest notices under BNSS sections 47 and 48 omitting grounds of arrest violate Articles 21 and 22, vitiating the arrest and barring NDPS Section 37, thereby granting bail to the accused and upholding fundamental rights.

A newspaper proprietor merely as owner/shareholder cannot be prosecuted for criminal defamation under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Gauhati HC held, shielding passive owners from liability for content they did not create.

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause letting one party curate the arbitrator panel breaches Section 18’s equal treatment mandate, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 and affecting contracts with similar party nominated panel clauses.

The Calcutta High Court held that Section 7(3) of the WB Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 cannot strike out a tenant’s defence unless rent arrears are admitted or judicially determined, requiring landlords to prove arrears before striking defences.

The J&K HC quashed a PSA detention order, holding that reliance on FIR and failure to supply documents used breach Article 22(5)’s live link and representation requirements barring preventive detention based on stale material and protect detainees right to respond.

Calcutta HC ruled a child neither orphaned nor abandoned is not in need of care and protection under Sec 2(14) JJ Act, directing CWC to restore custody to adoptive parents by 18 Sept 2026 at 4:00pm and to submit quarterly welfare reports from Dec 2026.

The Punjab and Haryana HC held that surrender of a passport under bail does not block its renewal, upholding Article 21 liberty. It directed the trial court to allow renewal with suitable safeguards, aiding those under similar bail conditions.

The Chhattisgarh HC held that an executing court cannot direct government officers to personally appear or file affidavits for payment of an arbitral award, as such orders exceed jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act read with Order XXI CPC. The ruling shields public officials from personal liability in award execution and limits court overreach.

Punjab & Haryana HC held that in a two-candidate panchayat poll, if winning candidate not an elector is disqualified, their votes treated as invalid, rival declared elected if they have a majority of valid votes, removing need to prove voter awareness.

MPHC held lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers, affirming specific performance and ordering execution of sale deed in plaintiff’s favor despite bona fide purchase, confirming Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides innocent buyer defenses.

The MP HC ruled CCI cannot launch suo motu inquiries into liquor sector via an untabled CAG report, holding the State Excise Act prevails over the Competition Act 2002 and the report’s redaction breached natural justice, shielding liquor firms from probes.

Delhi High Court held that knowledge of victim's caste suffices to frame charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. This lowers the threshold for invoking atrocity provisions at charge framing, impacting prosecutors and accused.

Judges in Assam Nagaland Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh will treat medical treatment related FIR delays as non fatal in POCSO trials and defence teams must be prepared to rebut the Section 29 presumption to secure acquittal.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a litigant cannot avoid responsibility for non-appearance by blaming counsel’s negligence under CPC Order 9 Rule 7. The ruling reinforces the duty of parties to actively monitor their cases, affecting litigants who rely solely on counsel for case updates.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a writ court’s direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expedite SARFAESI proceedings, ruling that such a directive oversteps jurisdiction when borrowers retain the statutory remedy under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to fast-track recovery actions, preserving the borrower’s right to challenge dues before the DRT or appellate tribunal.

The Karnataka HC held that where a contract limits relief to extension of time only, an arbitral award cannot grant monetary claims for parapet works, revised rates or reinforcement quantities, and it upheld the denial of a time-related costs claim for lack of proof of quantum.

The Calcutta High Court held that filing an eviction suit itself is a notice to quit under Section 106 TPA. This restores landlords’ right to possession and allows recovery of mesne profits without a separate notice.

Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 bars registration of a sale deed for an unapproved plot unless the land was previously recorded as a house site, requiring prior house-site registration for any transfer.

Section 348 BNSS allows summoning any witness whose evidence is essential for a just decision, even if not in charge-sheet, Uttarakhand HC held. It overturned the trial court’s refusal and ordered production of Malkhana Moharrir and original register.

The MPHC discharged parents-in-law, holding that omnibus allegations in dowry cases cannot sustain a prima facie case against relatives without specific involvement. This shields kin from generic accusations while upholding husband’s liability where allegations are specific.

Under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a unilateral arbitrator appointment after a dispute is invalid without a post-dispute written waiver, the Delhi High Court held, adding that pre-dispute clauses cannot substitute the waiver.

Delay in an arbitral award alone does not vitiate it under Section 34 unless the delay is unexplained and adversely affects the findings. Thus, an award cannot be set aside just for delay; parties must prove unexplained delay affecting the findings.