High Courts judgments

The Gauhati High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third-party victims under the 'pay and recover' principle even when the driver lacked a valid licence, affirming that such a violation does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedent that policy breaches by the driver cannot prejudice innocent third parties' rights to compensation.

The Calcutta High Court held the 7th Industrial Tribunal had proper territorial jurisdiction and that a contractual clause cannot deprive it of statutory authority, so domestic-enquiry findings and back-wage awards remain governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. The ruling protects employees from employer-imposed contractual limits.

The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can entertain civil suits to recover fraud-derived funds held in Indian banks, rejecting a forum non conveniens plea under the CPC. It also clarified that the limitation period for such monetary claims is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, commencing from the date the fraud is discovered. This decision guides foreign governments and claimants seeking cross-border fraud restitution in India.

The Delhi High Court reinstated the arbitral award, ruling that a claim of patent illegality fails when the award correctly interprets the contract and statutory provisions. This limits parties from overturning awards on that ground, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial interference in arbitration.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the FIR, ruling that Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita demands a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death. A contractor’s failure to provide safety equipment alone, without proof that the omission caused the fatality, does not attract criminal liability. The decision narrows the reach of criminal negligence provisions for employers and contractors across India.

Delhi High Court holds that pre-CIRP customs duties not filed during insolvency are extinguished once the IBC resolution plan is approved, quashing the customs order.

A Madras High Court second appeal confirmed that an ex-parte decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be set aside when the balance sale price is deposited after an unreasonable delay. The decision upholds the 1988 sale deed and signals that delayed payments defeat specific-performance orders, affecting buyers and sellers in property deals.

The Calcutta High Court held that, under Rule 86A CGST, GST authorities must provide a pre-decisional hearing before blocking a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger, reinforcing natural-justice safeguards. Accordingly, the order freezing Rs 4.43 crore of input tax credit was set aside, restoring the petitioner’s right to claim ITC and signalling that tax officials must follow due-process before restricting credit.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that payments made to outside agencies for dealing, dyeing and fabrication do not qualify as basic wages for provident fund purposes. Consequently, employers cannot be compelled to treat such contractor payments as PF wages, impacting firms that outsource these operations.

Calcutta HC directed SAIL to re-invite the MSME petitioner, allowing it to match the lowest-bidder’s price because the bid fell within the 15 % band mandated by the 2012 MSE purchase-preference policy. The court held that not ticking the MSME option on GeM does not defeat eligibility, and a mandamus can compel compliance. The ruling safeguards registered MSMEs in public procurement, ensuring they can compete even if the portal preference box is missed.

Uttarakhand HC held that the 20% fine-deposit under Section 148 NI Act may be lowered to Rs 10,000 for appellants facing extreme financial hardship. The reduced deposit is conditioned on the appeal being heard on its merits, creating discretionary relief for indigent defendants.

The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.

The Calcutta High Court held that the fifteen-working-day period mandated by Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act for a no-confidence meeting cannot be extended, even when police support is lacking, and reinstated the ousted Pradhan. This enforces strict statutory compliance for gram panchayats statewide.

The Meghalaya High Court held that a Service Tax assessment issued after an 8.5-year delay is ultra vires, as Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 mandates a strict limitation period. Tax authorities must complete assessments within the prescribed timeline, protecting assessee rights.

The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition contesting a gratuity award cannot proceed because the petitioners failed to file an appeal within the 120-day period prescribed by Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and it affirmed the validity of the notice served on the Trust’s administrative manager. This underscores that parties must strictly observe the statutory limitation to seek relief under the PG Act, affecting employers and former employees alike.

Delhi HC quashed a Single Judge’s order that nullified an arbitral award, reiterating that courts may intervene only under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and cannot re-appraise evidence or reinterpret the contract. The ruling preserves award finality and curtails judicial overreach for parties challenging awards.

Under Section 195 of the CrPC, a police FIR alleging obstruction of a public servant is invalid unless the servant files a written complaint; the Gujarat High Court therefore quashed the FIR. The ruling bars cognizance of such offences without the statutory complaint, protecting accused persons from unwarranted prosecution.

An EPF assessment order issued during the CIRP was set aside because the IBC moratorium prevents continuation of such inquiries and the amendment to Section 31(6) extinguishes claims filed before resolution. The ruling limits employees’ provident-fund claims against insolvent companies and guides resolution professionals.

An order extending the NDPS investigation under Sec 36-A(4) was struck down for breaching the accused’s right to notice and a hearing, restoring their entitlement to default bail. The ruling underscores that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in narcotics cases, affecting all persons facing NDPS prosecutions.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that an acquittal cannot be set aside on the basis of a new investigation report, reaffirming the double-jeopardy protection of Section 300 CrPC and limiting the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. This safeguards accused persons from being retried after a lawful acquittal.

A senior advocate’s claim for unpaid fees against the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted, with the Delhi High Court ordering payment of Rs 78.65 million plus 24% per annum interest. The bench clarified that a writ under Article 226 can be entertained even when the underlying facts are contested, widening the avenue for fee recovery from governments. The decision benefits senior advocates and other professionals seeking redress for outstanding fees from public authorities.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a bank’s termination of a probationary employee, ruling that FIRs lodged during probation cannot be used as a ground for dismissal without a proper inquiry, as it breaches natural justice and Article 311. The decision safeguards probationers from stigmatic discharge pending criminal investigations.

Demotion after maternity leave violates Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, the Delhi High Court found. It reinstated the employee as senior manager, awarded Rs 10 lakh for mental harassment, and directed the Union to issue guidelines for private employers. The ruling expands maternity protection to post-leave career progression for women workers.

Police must serve a written statement of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) and BNSS §§47-48-62, otherwise the detention is unlawful and the accused is entitled to bail. The ruling strengthens procedural safeguards for every arrested individual, including former legislators such as Bikram Panda.