High Courts judgments

The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a POCSO accused after the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority through statutory records or an ossification test, reiterating that school registers and similar documents are primary proof of age. The court further clarified that while DNA evidence may confirm sexual intercourse, it cannot substitute for proof of lack of consent to establish rape.

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹15 lakh pre-judgment security order, ruling that mere apprehension of asset disposal, a defendant's residence outside the jurisdiction, and evasive denials do not satisfy the stringent requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to prove a concrete intent to defeat decree execution. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking attachment before judgment in commercial suits.

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award granting 9% interest on a Performance Bank Guarantee from the date of invocation violated public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) where the contract expressly excluded interest under Clause 13(2). The court set aside this portion of the award while upholding the rejection of the delayed shipment claim. The ruling reinforces that arbitrators cannot rewrite contractual terms on interest, and such overreach renders an award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law.

The Bombay HC ordered rectification of LEFOXIN BIOX, holding it deceptively similar to Glaxo's 1956 LANOXIN mark under the stricter Cadila pharma test. Export sales constitute use in India under Section 56(1), but removal is deferred to December 31, 2026 for rebranding.

The Bombay High Court held that once the full admitted tax is paid and a Tribunal appeal is filed, Section 112(9) CGST Act automatically stays recovery of disputed interest, as Section 112(8) requires no pre-deposit. The ruling shields taxpayers from coercive recovery during appeals, confirming the stay operates without a separate application.

The court held Section 467 IPC carries a maximum seven-year sentence, classifying it as a 'serious offence' under the JJ Act 2015, not 'heinous'. This eliminates the need for a Section 15 preliminary assessment. The transfer of a 16-year-old to the Children's Court was quashed, restoring the JJB's trial jurisdiction. The ruling clarifies the offence classification threshold for juveniles aged 16-18.

The Bombay High Court ruled that an arrest under PMLA Section 19 is impermissible when Section 50 proceedings have already been initiated on the same material, quashing three remand orders and directing the petitioner's immediate release. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards against parallel coercive actions by the Enforcement Directorate.

The Allahabad HC quashed a third compounding order for Gulmohar Greens, holding repeated compounding for identical offences barred. It ruled Air Force land cannot count toward FAR, mandated prior apartment-owner consent for alterations under the UP Apartment Act, and required a completion certificate before flat transfers. Demolition of unauthorized floors and a fresh police probe were ordered.

The court held that dock identification of a stranger witness without a test identification parade carries no evidentiary value, and co-accused disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are inadmissible unless they lead to discovery of facts. The prosecution also failed to prove conspiracy and harbouring beyond reasonable doubt, securing acquittal in a 2004 robbery case.

The Delhi High Court held that forfeiture of earnest money under an Agreement to Sell is not automatic; the party retaining the deposit must prove actual legal injury and quantifiable loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The court distinguished the K.R. Suresh precedent, ruling it inapplicable to simple recovery suits, thereby strengthening a vendee's right to recover earnest money absent proven damages.

The court quashed a 2014 proclaimed offender declaration after the CBI failed to serve summons at the accused's known Australian address. Section 82 CrPC demands proof of deliberate evasion, not mere non-service; the invalid proclamation does not affect arrest warrants, the INTERPOL Red Notice, or extradition.

The court invalidated Rule 3(7) for granting unguided discretion to the State in engaging law officers, violating Article 162 read with the void-for-vagueness doctrine. While the ₹20,000 monthly retainer for Law Research Officers was upheld, the State must reassess its adequacy within three months, impacting contractual legal appointments across Jharkhand.

The Madras High Court held that setting aside an ex-parte order in a summary suit does not dispense with Order XXXVII CPC's mandatory leave-to-defend procedure. The defendant must still seek leave to defend; a written statement cannot be filed as of right. The trial court's acceptance of the written statement without this step was set aside, upholding the summary suit's expedited recovery framework.

The court held that a guarantor's security cheque is not automatically exempt from Section 138 prosecution merely because it was given as collateral; the existence of an enforceable debt must be tested at trial. This clarifies that guarantors cannot escape cheque bounce proceedings at the threshold without a full evidentiary inquiry into the underlying liability.

Allahabad HC upheld a trial court's order allowing a second Section 216 CrPC application to add Section 307 IPC, ruling medical evidence of a firearm injury and the victim's statement sufficient prima facie material for pre-judgment charge alteration. The court declined Section 528 BNSS interference, affirming trial courts' discretion to alter charges on credible evidence.

The High Court ruled that a trial court's refusal to grant police aid for enforcing an interim injunction is revisable under Article 227 where the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed during the suit. It directed police assistance to restore possession, holding that interim orders must be effectively enforced to prevent self-help. This strengthens protection for plaintiffs facing forceful dispossession pending litigation.

The Madras HC set aside a trial court order returning an unnumbered plaint in an adverse possession suit against a TN Land Encroachment Act notice, holding courts must first number the plaint and hear the plaintiff on maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - a jurisdictional bar cannot justify bypassing this mandatory procedure.

Madras HC holds defendants lack locus to challenge GPA execution under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as strangers to the instrument. Foreign notary authentication upheld under Section 14 Notaries Act without reciprocity; GPA not compulsorily attestable. Date ambiguity resolved via notary seal evidence.

The High Court overturned a family court order awarding custody to a father who had remarried without divorce, abandoned his younger son, and flouted a restitution decree. The father's bigamy and contempt of court orders rendered him unfit; the children's welfare was held paramount, granting custody to the mother with supervised DLSA visitation.

The court held that a terminated development agreement is not an 'asset' under Section 14(1)(d), and the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is confined to disputes arising directly from insolvency. This permits arbitration proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor to continue during CIRP.

J&K High Court rules that unauthorized bovine transport under prohibitory orders does not constitute smuggling or threaten public order, quashing PSA detention order. The court finds subjective satisfaction vitiated by non-application of mind, where detenue was discharged in two FIRs and transported male bovines, not cows.

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal: birth certificate without source verification cannot prove minority, making POCSO presumption inapplicable. Victim's conduct - no outcry, voluntary travel, non-disclosure - negated kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. Proven age is a jurisdictional prerequisite for POCSO; voluntary accompaniment by a minor defeats kidnapping charges.

The Bombay High Court quashed Scrutiny Committee orders rejecting Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificates, ruling that a pre-Independence birth record cannot be dismissed as interpolated without expert handwriting analysis. The court directed issuance of certificates within three weeks, safeguarding applicants' rights against arbitrary rejection of historical documentary evidence.

The Bombay High Court held that serving a Section 41A CrPC notice after arrest renders the arrest illegal, exposing police manipulation of records and collusion with a developer to frame the petitioner. The court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation, ordered the investigating Sub-Inspector's suspension, and referred the Magistrate to the Administrative Committee for judicial oversight failures.