High Courts judgments

The court ruled that offences under the Public Gambling Act do not constitute 'gang' activity under the U.P. Gangsters Act, and a vehicle purchased before any FIR was registered cannot be confiscated merely because loan EMIs were paid post-FIR without concrete evidence linking those payments to criminal proceeds. This decision protects pre-acquisition assets from speculative attachment under the Act.

The Orissa High Court acquitted a husband and mother-in-law, ruling that the statutory presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act cannot be invoked without foundational proof of cruelty 'soon before death'. Unfulfilled dowry demands and suspicious cremation alone are insufficient to sustain a Section 304-B IPC conviction, raising the evidentiary bar for dowry death prosecutions.

The court held that limitation under Article 58 for challenging registered settlement deeds begins from the registration date, as Section 3 TPA deems constructive notice to all parties. A plaintiff residing with the executants cannot claim ignorance of deeds registered in 2004 and 2009 until filing suit in 2024. The ruling reinforces that registered documents impart immediate legal knowledge regardless of actual awareness.

The Delhi High Court ruled that MSME registration under Section 18 operates prospectively, so pre-registration claims are not maintainable before the Facilitation Council. A party cannot abandon arbitration and later obtain MSME registration to invoke MSEFC jurisdiction - this constitutes forum hunting. Territorial jurisdiction of MSEFCs is also strict, preventing forum shopping.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a superdar (subsequent purchaser without registration transfer) is liable only up to the vehicle's value or the superdari bond amount, not the full compensation award. The registered owner and driver remain jointly and severally liable for the entire amount, and courts must impose conditions safeguarding the claimants' lien on the vehicle.

The Gujarat High Court ruled Sections 406 and 420 IPC are mutually exclusive per Delhi Race Club (2024), quashing the FIR against two accused for vague, non-specific allegations. Omnibus family-dispute claims lacking intentional insult to provoke breach of peace also fail to attract Section 504 IPC.

Patna HC upheld CAT's quashing of ₹4.87 lakh recovery from a railway employee granted premature MACP upgradation due to departmental error. The court ruled excess pay cannot be recovered absent employee misrepresentation, placing the burden of administrative mistakes on the department. This reinforces protection for government servants against financial liability for errors in pay fixation.

The Orissa High Court reduced a murder conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, holding that Section 301 IPC's transferred malice does not upgrade the offence when the unintended victim dies. The ruling clarifies that murder requires intent towards the actual victim, narrowing constructive liability in homicide cases.

The court held that full deposit of Employees' Provident Fund dues before chargesheet filing erases the dishonest intention essential for criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. Continuing prosecution after complete restitution constitutes an abuse of process, particularly where the default arose from economic collapse of a single-screen cinema rather than fraudulent intent.

The Meghalaya High Court quashed a POCSO FIR against a husband after the adolescent couple married and had a child, applying the Wahlang framework to verify the survivor's informed consent and recognize matrilineal customs. The court mandated scheme benefits for the victim and child within eight weeks and ordered judicial monitoring to ensure compliance.

Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the dismissal of a PSPCL Assistant Lineman that rested exclusively on a criminal conviction later overturned on appeal. The court ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of acquittal (08.06.2023) and salary for the suspension period, holding that a dismissal anchored only to a conviction loses its legal foundation once the conviction is set aside.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation under Section 20(3)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act cannot exceed the statutory limit of Rs 10, setting aside the Authority's award of 50% compensation on overtime arrears. The court substituted the excess compensation with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim accrual. This clarifies the ceiling on penal compensation for minimum wage violations, impacting employers and workers in sectors like private security.

The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.

The court ruled that a secured creditor in a SARFAESI auction must disclose known material encumbrances like unearned increase (UEI) charges, holding that an 'as is where is' clause does not override this statutory duty. Indian Bank was directed to pay UEI charges for four auctioned plots, with conveyance deeds to follow within four weeks. The ruling safeguards auction purchasers from hidden liabilities and mandates transparency in distressed asset sales.

The court held that mobile phone accessories are functional commercial hardware, not 'artistic works' eligible for copyright protection, quashing an FIR filed under the Copyright Act. It further ruled that police searches for trademark violations require prior Registrar opinion and a DSP-rank officer under the Trade Marks Act, rendering the search and seizure procedurally invalid. The decision clarifies the copyright-trademark boundary and enforces statutory safeguards against misuse of criminal IP enforcement.

The Gujarat High Court held that an electricity distribution licensee remains strictly liable for electrocution deaths caused by live wires, even when the consumer illegally taps the line. The ruling places primary responsibility on the supplier for the escape of dangerous energy, ensuring victims' families can claim compensation directly from the board irrespective of the consumer's power theft.

The Calcutta High Court set aside an interim injunction in a defamation suit, ruling the trial court erred by not applying the Bonnard Principle. A plaintiff must prove the defence of truth is certain to fail at trial - not merely establish a prima facie case - to obtain pre-trial restraint. The decision raises the threshold for interim relief in defamation, strengthening free speech protections.

The Delhi HC ruled that "last resided together" under Section 19(iii) HMA means the final joint residence - a four-year Gurugram stay displacing an earlier 18-month Delhi residence. The divorce petition was rightly returned for want of jurisdiction, and the appeal dismissed on maintainability (wrong respondent) and merits.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be invoked to evict an estranged daughter-in-law with a right to reside in the shared household, confirming the plea was filed at the son's behest to settle matrimonial scores. The ruling safeguards a daughter-in-law's residence rights against the misuse of senior citizen maintenance law as a proxy for matrimonial disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana HC held that a CBFC Regional Officer lacks power to refuse film certification absent valid Section 7B delegation. It set aside the refusal and directed the Chairperson to reconsider the application for 'Chardikala' with a hearing within statutory timelines.

The Bombay High Court held that the clause 'Arbitration Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction' in a purchase order constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7, even though it lacks mandatory referential language or procedural machinery. The court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), affirming that minimalist clauses can satisfy the statutory threshold for arbitration agreements in commercial contracts.

The court ruled that a purchaser at a mortgage auction steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and cannot displace statutory tenants without invoking specific grounds under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The judgment protects shop owners and tenants from summary eviction following a secured creditor's sale of the property.

The High Court set aside a Family Court order denying interim custody of a four-year-old girl to her mother, ruling that Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act creates a statutory presumption favouring maternal custody for children under five. Substituting visitation rights for the custody prayer was held to be a perverse exercise of discretion.

A tenant who unequivocally denies the landlord's title and claims ownership forfeits the lease under Section 111(g) TPA, losing Delhi Rent Control Act protection. The court upheld the decree for possession, rent arrears (Rs. 20/month at 9% interest), and mesne profits (Rs. 1,000/month), confirming that title repudiation extinguishes all statutory tenant safeguards.