High Courts judgments

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that demolishing residential premises for road widening without prior notice, a hearing, or compensation violates constitutional due process, and ordered a committee to ensure procedural compliance and award appropriate compensation to affected owners. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for property owners under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement framework.

A taxpayer with a writ petition pending on 22 July 2024 is deemed an appellant under Section 89(1)(a) of the 2024 Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, overturning a revenue circular that excluded such claimants. This expands waiver benefits to litigants with pending writs, widening eligibility under the scheme.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that land situated more than ten kilometres from a municipal boundary attracts a 1.5 multiplier in compensation under the 2013 Act, and that the market-value date is the Section 4 notification. This raises the payable amount to ₹99,17,362 per acre, affecting owners and developers acquiring rural land beyond the specified distance.

The Calcutta High Court held that a deliberately caused act can still qualify as an ‘accident’ under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, raising the award to Rs 60 lakh with 6 % interest and rejecting the insurer’s Mediclaim set-off claim.

The Calcutta High Court reinstated a monthly maintenance order, ruling that Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary and do not demand civil proof of a valid marriage. This prevents destitute spouses from losing relief on technical grounds and clarifies the evidentiary burden in welfare cases.

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that a POCSO FIR may be quashed where the parties are in a consensual marriage and the alleged victim has given informed consent, invoking Section 528 CrPC’s discretionary power. The decision narrows POCSO’s reach in adolescent marriages and guides prosecutors on when FIRs can be dismissed.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer, holding that Section 58 of the NDPS Act imposes liability only when the officer personally engages in the vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest. This limits police accountability to those directly involved, not merely supervising officials.

The Bombay High Court ruled that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC applies only to corporate debtors and does not halt criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against company directors. This limits the moratorium’s protective reach, leaving directors exposed to prosecution during insolvency.

By reading the UAPA’s reference to CrPC 167 as a reference to BNSS 187, the Delhi High Court confirmed that default bail remains barred for 180 days in terrorism-related cases. This prevents a premature 90-day bail claim and affects all accused charged under the UAPA.

The court upheld appeals to the Chief Secretary but invalidated the proviso routing appeals to the Minister-in-Charge when the Chief Secretary doubles as State Election Commissioner, ruling that a constitutional authority exercising statutory powers cannot claim immunity from legislative oversight. This preserves the State Election Commission's quasi-judicial independence in municipal defection cases.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's reversal of an adverse possession decree, ruling that a co-sharer's forcible ouster cannot satisfy the 'peaceful possession' requirement under the Limitation Act. The court also found the claimants' reliance on unproven wills and absence of documentary evidence fatal to their case.

Chhattisgarh HC ruled that an unauthorised company secretary cannot testify in a Section 138 case and a complaint filed via power of attorney is void if the authorised representative fails to appear. The judgment stresses that firms must secure proper corporate authorisation before filing cheque-bounce suits, affecting companies and their legal officers.

The Delhi High Court ordered monthly supervised visits to include group activities like board games to strengthen the father-twin bond, and mandated make-up visits with a child counsellor for any missed sessions. The ruling targets parents in contempt for breaching visitation orders, underscoring the court’s focus on child welfare.

Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses NEET UG 2026 answer key challenges, upholds expert panel's 'most appropriate answer' standard and OMR marking rules.

The Punjab & Haryana HC quashed a Section 138 complaint against a non-signatory to the cheque, affirming that only the drawer can be prosecuted. The complainant conceded the accused was not a signatory, resulting in the summoning order being set aside qua the petitioner.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a claimant can recover the entire compensation award from any one of the joint tortfeasors, overturning the tribunal’s 50-50 split. This affirms that under the Motor Vehicles Act, joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, expanding recovery avenues for motor accident victims.

The court ruled that disclosure statements excluded by Section 23 BSA cannot sustain detention absent any recovery or FIR mention. Granting parity with bailed co-accused, it allowed regular bail under BNSS Section 483, stressing that indefinite pre-trial incarceration is impermissible at the early trial stage.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge a trial court's discretionary decision to admit secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for proving a Will. The ruling clarifies that evidentiary rulings, even if debatable, must be challenged through appellate channels rather than constitutional writs, preserving the trial court's domain over procedural evidence management.

Delhi HC rules arbitration clause survives final award for subsequent distinct disputes, appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) for GST reimbursement claim. Court confines Section 11 inquiry to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement, not dispute merits. Decision protects arbitration rights in long-term contracts where fresh claims arise post-award.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that ‘NOVIETS’ is deceptively similar to the well-known mark ‘NOVARTIS’, considering visual and phonetic resemblance in the pharmaceutical sector. The court reiterated that appellate interference with interim injunctions is warranted only where the order is perverse or ignores settled principles, dismissing the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma.

Rajasthan HC dismisses writ petition challenging railway contract rescission: no territorial jurisdiction at Jodhpur, disputed facts require arbitral forum, 45 days to invoke alternative remedy.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a Section 164 statement remains valid even if a parent assists as interpreter, and that PoCSO’s interpreter requirement is fulfilled by any person competent in the child’s mode of communication. This expands admissibility of child-witness testimony and clarifies interpreter qualifications for future PoCSO sexual-offence cases, affecting prosecutors and defence counsel.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a collector may not demand a no-objection from a co-operative society as a pre-condition for registering a consent decree under the Registration Act. This clarifies that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not extend to such registrations. Property owners and societies gain certainty that registration cannot be blocked by administrative consent.

A cooperative society cannot be barred indefinitely without a valid show-cause notice, as such orders breach natural-justice norms and Article 14’s equality guarantee. The Allahabad High Court quashed the 2019 blacklisting, stressing that debarment must be time-bound and procedurally fair, protecting all entities subject to government blacklisting.