High Courts judgments

A partition suit is not maintainable if plaintiffs lack actual or constructive possession and do not seek possession relief, the Delhi High Court ruled, placing the burden on challengers of registered documents to prove invalidity.

Punjab & Haryana High Court held that MBBS prospectus cannot be altered after process starts and that migrant SC certificates do not bar reservation. It quashed revised list and directed a fresh list within ten days, affecting Chandigarh MBBS aspirants.

A trial court may recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC when the evidence is essential and the grounds differ from an earlier dismissal, the Telangana HC held, imposing Rs.5,000 costs to ensure a fair trial.

The HP HC rejected the State’s laches defence, holding that delay did not bar the petitioners’ right to challenge the Recruitment Act or seek relief grounded in their contractual service.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that, absent local sale transactions, compensation under Section 26(b) of the 2013 Act must be based on sale deeds from the nearest adjoining village. It affirmed Rs. 99,300 per decimal compensation using a verified deed from Kankebar village, guiding future land acquisition assessments.

Directors of a Delhi-based electronics trading firm cannot bypass the CGST appellate remedy by alleging defective notice service and denial of personal hearing; the Delhi HC held such factual disputes fall outside Article 226 jurisdiction, dismissing challenges to a Rs. 27.11 crore penalty under Section 122(1A) CGST Act.

The Punjab & Haryana HC held that an accused cannot compel production of a status report submitted to the Supreme Court in another proceeding when it is not part of the case record, affirming that the right to seek documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. arises at the defence stage, not during prosecution evidence. This ruling clarifies disclosure limits and impacts defence strategy in criminal trials.

The Punjab and Haryana HC held that an employee granted notional promotion is entitled to arrears of salary when the employer’s actions prevent duty performance, quashing the denial of pay for 21 Jan 2008-23 Apr 2012 and ordering payment within three months.

The Delhi HC held that anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on unverified telephonic calls without interception, stressing that liberty under Section 438 CrPC needs substantive evidence. It shields NDPS accused whose case relies only on call logs lacking corroboration.

Delhi HC ruled that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to file additional documents after the 15-day period for leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 expires, reinforcing the strict deadline for tenants and landlords in rent-control eviction suits.

A payer’s residence alone does not trigger tax under Sec 5(2)(b) absent a business connection in India, the Delhi HC ruled, quashing Rs 783 crore of TDS demands on pharma firms. The ruling clarifies source rule, shielding payments from unjust tax claims.

The Delhi High Court held that Section 17A PC Act’s prior sanction requirement does not apply to demands for illegal gratification, letting the charge framing stand. It clarifies that sanction is required only for acceptance, not demand, of bribes, guiding corruption prosecutions.

The Delhi High Court held that relatives’ testimony is not interested and that a dowry demand satisfies proximity requirement under Section 304B IPC, clarifying evidentiary standards in dowry death cases and guiding trial courts on witness credibility.

Telangana HC ordered revenue authorities to delete land entries based on a Waqf Gazette set aside by the court, holding their retention violates Article 300A and binds the State and Waqf Board to comply, shielding landowners from wrongful Wakf classifications.

The Uttarakhand High Court held that possession based on an unregistered contract for sale is merely permissive and cannot confer adverse possession unless the plaintiff specifically pleads hostile animus. The ruling clarifies that mere contractual possession does not trigger Section 54 TPA protections, affecting land claimants relying on informal sale agreements.

Calcutta HC held that CGST Rule 96(10), omitted without a saving clause, has no legal existence and cannot ground proceedings, quashing GST notice against Glen Industries. This confirms that actions under omitted rules are invalid, impacting taxpayers.

The Calcutta High Court set aside HPCL’s withdrawal of LOI and forfeiture of ₹20,000 deposit, holding it violated RPWD Act 2016’s reasonable accommodation and directing reconsideration of petitioner request to substitute a disabled applicant in 8 weeks.

The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.

HP HC held that under BNSS §432, prosecution may submit a matriculation certificate as additional evidence to prove a victim's age in a POCSO case at the appellate stage if it supports the case. This clarifies age-proof evidence rules in POCSO trials.

The Gauhati High Court held that an unexamined school admission register cannot establish a victim’s minority and that ossification test results must be interpreted with a two-year margin in favour of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, clarifying the evidentiary burden for age proof in POCSO prosecutions.

The Madras High Court ruled that an executing court cannot set aside a specific performance decree based on a judgment that did not examine the sale agreement, and that a pendente lite purchaser has no right to resist execution under Section 47 CPC.

The Gujarat High Court held that an ST woman who inherited property from her husband may bequeath it by will absent proof of any tribal custom prohibiting such disposition. This confirms Act's inapplicability to STs absent a prohibiting custom.

The Calcutta High Court quashed NI Act proceedings against whole-time directors who were not signatories to the dishonoured cheques, ruling that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments linking the director to the transaction. The decision clarifies that a mere corporate role is insufficient to attract liability, affecting directors in cheque bounce disputes.

The Gujarat HC held a POA is not irrevocable unless the agent has an interest in the subject-matter, letting the principal cancel it even after partial use. Any sale deed executed by the agent after cancellation is void, shielding principals from unauthorized transfers.