High Courts judgments

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 498A complaint against parents-in-law, ruling it was a mala fide counterblast to an eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act. The court held that omnibus allegations lacking specific dates or overt acts constitute an abuse of process, shielding elderly litigants from retaliatory criminal proceedings.

The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty on a Joint Development Agreement cannot be levied on future contingent development rights as if they were present vested rights, quashing orders that inflated valuation beyond rights existing on the execution date. The ruling clarifies that valuation under Article 5(g-a)(i) must reflect only the development rights actually transferred at the time of agreement execution, protecting developers from excessive duty demands on speculative future entitlements.

Limitation for executing a 2008 arbitral award runs from 23 October 2015, when amended Section 36 made awards immediately enforceable, not the award date. Pre-amendment law required the Section 34 challenge period to expire first, blocking execution for seven years per National Aluminium. The ruling shields award holders from statutory gaps that delayed enforcement.

The Bombay High Court held that an assignee of ownership rights is not bound by an arbitration clause in a development agreement unless the arbitration agreement is expressly assigned or accepted. The court also ruled that limitation objections fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16, not the Section 11 court's purview at the appointment stage.

Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses Section 482 petition seeking quashing of Insecticides Act prosecution; nomination of responsible person under Section 33 does not immunize other officers against whom specific allegations exist.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court nearly doubled compensation for a 23-year-old engineer's death to ₹22.27 lakh, applying the Pranay Sethi formula with a 40% future-prospects addition and an 18-year multiplier. It also barred the insurer's recovery claim, ruling that an out-of-state driving licence cannot be presumed invalid without proof of policy breach.

Approval of a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes tax liabilities, requiring refund of pre-deposit and quashing tax recovery orders; this bars authorities from pursuing dues after plan approval, affecting taxpayers and tax departments.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an ejectment petition filed under the repealed East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is not maintainable for a tenancy that commenced after the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 came into force on 30 November 2013. Consequently, an NRI landlord cannot rely on the 1949 Act to claim bona fide personal requirement and must seek relief under Section 24(3) of the 1995 Act, which applies only to tenancies predating that date.

The Delhi High Court set aside an IOCL Chief Manager's dismissal, holding that the disciplinary authority cannot adopt findings more adverse than the inquiry officer's without reasons and a hearing. The Chairman's dual role as disciplinary and appellate authority violated natural justice, and the penalty was grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of backdating and shared negligence.

The court ruled that a contractual forum-selection clause cannot exclude the High Court's Article 226 writ jurisdiction, and that blacklisting a contractor as a 'Poor Performer' requires a show-cause notice specifying the exact grounds and proposed penalty, not merely an automatic consequence of contract termination. The two-year debarment order was set aside for violating natural justice.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a cheque bounce conviction because the complaint was filed before the statutory 15-day notice period expired, ruling that a premature complaint is jurisdictionally defective and legally non-existent. The decision reinforces that strict compliance with Section 138's procedural timeline is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a mere formality.

The Gauhati High Court held that a revision petition is maintainable against a Sessions Judge's interlocutory order rejecting condonation of delay in a Domestic Violence Act appeal. Condoning delays of 123 and 55 days attributed to change of counsel, the Court directed the appeal to be decided on merits, underscoring that beneficial legislation like the DV Act warrants a liberal approach to procedural technicalities to ensure substantive justice for victims.

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

The Orissa High Court held that time taken for medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour production mandate under Article 22(2) - only journey time is excludable. Consequently, the accused's detention beyond 25 hours vitiated the arrest and remand, entitling him to bail in an NDPS case involving 51 kg of ganja.

The Madras HC held 11 Henkel India managers were not 'workmen' under the ID Act, rejecting the 'functional integrality' test for Section 25FF severance. It set aside a 90-day award but granted 15 days' wages per year with 9% interest as goodwill, affirming managerial exclusion from workman status despite factory proximity.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an insufficiently stamped agreement for sale in a specific performance suit must be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act rather than leading to dismissal of the suit. The court remanded the matter for payment of deficit stamp duty and adjudication on merits, clarifying that stamp deficiency is a curable procedural defect, not a substantive bar to relief.

Calcutta HC ruled Umadevi is no blanket bar to regularizing daily-rated employees with 10+ years service appointed through regular selection (employment exchange/interview). Authorities must consider regularization and, interim, pay 1/30th salary plus DA per the 1988 OM. The decision protects regularly selected long-term employees from casual labour classification.

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two UAPA accused after nearly five years of pre-trial detention during which only 21 of 359 witnesses were examined, ruling that Article 21 constitutional protections prevail over Section 43D(5) statutory bail restrictions when trial delay is inordinate and the accused's role is peripheral. The decision reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress cannot be justified solely by the severity of UAPA allegations.

The Delhi High Court held that a SARFAESI auction sale becomes final upon full payment within the Rule 9(4) period, extinguishing the borrower's redemption right irrespective of pending sale certificate registration before the DRT. The ruling secures auction purchasers' rights and clarifies that procedural delays in registration cannot reopen redemption.

The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 142A valuation reference initiated one day before the limitation period expired, ruling it a colourable exercise of power since the Assessing Officer held all necessary material for six months yet remained inactive. The decision prevents revenue authorities from using valuation references as a tactic to artificially prolong assessment proceedings.

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹8.4 lakh decree for a commission agent, holding that an internal account statement not filed with the plaint is inadmissible under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. The agent must independently prove actual supply of X-ray films to government departments to claim commission; a limitation plea raised for the first time in appeal was rejected.

The Delhi High Court held that input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A cannot be used to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) for filing a GST appeal. The court granted the petitioner four weeks from the judgment date to file the appeal with interim protection from coercive recovery.

The Delhi High Court quashed the ECI's mandate requiring Booth Level Agents to undertake verification of enumeration forms in Special Intensive Revision, holding that Section 31 RP Act confines BLA liability to photograph matching. The court deemed the blanket undertaking requirement arbitrary as the statutory duty to verify electoral rolls rests with Booth Level Officers, not party-appointed agents.

The court ruled that the arrest memo's missing witness signature, vague grounds of arrest, and failure to inform the family of the specific grounds - as mandated by BNSS Sections 36, 47, and 48 - rendered the arrest illegal. Bail was granted in an NDPS case where the accused was also unrepresented during remand proceedings.