10222 High Courts judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 18 of 426.
By rejecting the writ, the Delhi High Court clarified that the proper forum for MCA investigations is the place where the substantive corporate dispute arises, reinforcing the nexus test for Article 226 jurisdiction. This guidance applies to companies facing regulatory probes across India.
The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the third proviso of Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act applies only to borrowers, so a non-borrower cannot be forced to deposit 25 % of the debt to file an appeal. This removes an unlawful pre-deposit condition for third-party appellants and clarifies the filing fee structure for all SARFAESI appeals.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the criminal complaint, holding that without a specific allegation that a director was ‘in charge of and responsible for the company’s business’ at the time of the offence, Section 141 cannot be invoked. This narrows vicarious liability for directors in cheque-dishonour cases, limiting prosecution to those expressly shown to control the business.
The Madras High Court held that a discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC is barred when the prosecution has shown a prima facie case under the UAPA, meaning terrorism charges cannot be sidestepped by early release. This sets a clear precedent for all UAPA-accused awaiting trial.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the 2023 order that forced a long-serving contractual library employee to join an outsourcing agency, directing her regularisation under the state's service rules. The ruling strengthens statutory protection for contractual staff against forced outsourcing.
Gujarat HC ruled that the complainant in a cheque-bounce matter is the victim and may file an appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, directing the case be transferred to the Sessions Court. This expands the victim’s procedural rights in NI Act prosecutions.
Gujarat High Court ruled that an insurer cannot be compelled to pay interest on workmen's compensation when the employer-liability policy expressly excludes such liability. The decision overturns the Labour Court's interest award, reinforcing the primacy of policy terms. Employers and insurers must review policy wording to avoid unexpected interest obligations.
An oral, temporary settlement among co-owners does not meet the legal definition of a partition, so the Delhi High Court allowed a fresh partition suit despite earlier compromise orders. The decision confirms informal compromises cannot bar new partition actions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, affecting joint-family property litigants.
The Gujarat High Court held that interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act accrues from the date of the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award (or permanent possession), not from the date of temporary possession. This limits claimants' interest entitlement and clarifies future compensation calculations in land-acquisition cases.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a writ under Article 226 cannot disturb the factual determinations of a consumer forum, confirming the forum’s modified refund order with 12 % interest. This narrows supervisory review, impacting insurers and consumers under the CPA 2019.
Delhi High Court confirmed that a seller may retain only the expressly stipulated earnest-money amount, rejecting forfeiture of the full ₹17.5 million paid. The ruling limits Section 74 ICA to penal clauses and excludes later part-payments, urging parties to define earnest money separately.
By accepting the parties’ admission of signatures, the Delhi HC declared the 1994-95 promissory notes genuine, invoking Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision confirms that statutory presumption of authenticity trumps handwriting doubts, guiding future forgery challenges.
The Delhi High Court quashed the Registrar’s last-minute appointment of an administrator just before the scheduled co-op housing society elections, deeming it ultra vires. It also ordered that all election documents be kept safe, protecting members’ voting rights.
A Delhi High Court ruled that serving summons through a process server at the defendant’s registered office satisfies CPC requirements, overturning an ex-parte decree. The court granted the defendant a conditional order to file its defence within a stipulated period, underscoring that proper service can revive a litigant’s right to contest a suit.
The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.
The Delhi High Court ruled that for industrial disputes the appropriate jurisdiction is where the employee worked and was dismissed, rendering the employer’s Delhi head office irrelevant. This clarifies that labour courts must base jurisdiction on the actual site of employment, affecting workers and employers in multi-state operations.
The Gauhati High Court quashed the April 2025 order cancelling the regularisation of 45 Block Education Officers, holding that appointments must adhere to the statutory recruitment rules and earlier judicial directions. The decision reinstates the officers’ regular status and bars arbitrary revocation.
The Jharkhand HC said an insurer must prove any licence breach under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It raised the claim award to Rs 16.22 million with 6 % interest, stressing the duty to pay just compensation.
Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the Devi Villa Homestay owner, ruling that offences alleged under the now-repealed Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 239 of the BNSS are untenable because the conduct occurred after the statute’s repeal. The decision underscores that once a law is repealed, no statutory duty to report arises, shielding individuals from retroactive criminal liability.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a claimant’s functional disability cannot be equated with the percentage of medical disability, mandating a distinct assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the compensation award was raised to Rs 14.10 lakhs and a belated cross-objection was allowed, setting a precedent for future motor-accident claims.
Assistant teachers whose appointment was postponed because of a public holiday must receive their first salary increment based on the original appointment date, with salary back-dated and arrears payable from 1 January 2017. The order compels the Uttar Pradesh education department to re-fix salaries accordingly, benefiting dozens of teachers who were otherwise denied the increment.
The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed that a partition effected in 1970 and the self-acquired nature of Schedule C property barred a subsequent partition suit, reinforcing that partition cannot be presumed and self-acquired assets remain outside the joint family estate.
The Delhi High Court ruled that TDS deductions on interest payments count as acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the Limitation Act’s three-year period to the date of the last TDS deduction. Consequently, loan-recovery suits remain actionable beyond the usual limitation when TDS is continuously deducted.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitration clause embedded in an invoice, though unsigned, is enforceable if the parties’ subsequent conduct indicates assent, allowing a Section 8 application to refer the dispute to arbitration. This clarifies that a physical signature is not essential for arbitration agreements, benefiting businesses relying on conduct-based acceptance.