High Courts judgments

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a Section 319 CrPC application to summon additional accused is permissible only when the trial record contains strong, cogent evidence. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition where the allegation was uncorroborated, tightening the test for summoning extra accused.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered regular bail for Gurkirpal Singh, holding that when the prosecution offers no independent evidence, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the stringent bail denial under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This establishes that speedy-trial rights can prevail over statutory bail restrictions, benefiting accused in drug cases lacking direct proof.

Delhi High Court ruled Section 34 challenges to international commercial arbitral awards are limited to patent illegality, rejecting waiver-of-timeline arguments. The decision narrows judicial interference, reinforcing finality of cross-border awards. Parties must rely on these narrow grounds.

Charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 IPC were upheld at the charge-framing stage because the court said a prima facie case based on the material record, including supplementary statements, suffices. This clarifies that detailed proof is not required until trial, guiding prosecutors and defence in dowry-death matters.

The Delhi High Court held that the three-month limitation for filing a Section 34 petition only begins when a Section 33 application is finally disposed, even if the application is a sham. Consequently, parties can file Section 34 petitions later than previously thought, and courts may award punitive costs against frivolous Section 33 filings.

The Delhi High Court rejected the Section 34 challenge to the 2018 arbitral award on the Safdarjung Tomb illumination contract, reiterating that awards can be set aside only on the narrow grounds enumerated in the Arbitration Act. This reinforces limited judicial interference, affecting parties seeking to overturn commercial arbitration outcomes.

The Delhi High Court ruled that once a criminal trial is underway, the court’s inherent powers cannot be used to set aside the FIR, even when the complainant and accused have reached a settlement. This limits the ability of parties to terminate pending prosecutions through private compromise after prosecution has begun, affecting litigants seeking FIR quash on settlement grounds.

A Delhi High Court set aside an eviction decree, ruling that only the Rent Controller can determine whether a rent-increase notice under Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was validly served. Consequently, civil courts cannot adjudicate rent-increase disputes until that determination, impacting landlords and tenants across Delhi.

Gujarat High Court ruled that information obtained via the RTI Act remains private and cannot be treated as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, restricting its use as secondary evidence. This limits parties’ ability to rely on RTI disclosures in civil proceedings.

A dismissal of a complaint for procedural default does not extinguish the power to treat a subsequent petition under CrPC s.156(3) as a new FIR, even when the facts are identical. This safeguards complainants by ensuring procedural lapses cannot shield alleged offences.

The Gujarat High Court held corporate guarantees are not a supply under the CGST Act, striking down Rule 28(2) and related CBIC circulars. Consequently, issuers of such guarantees are exempt from GST, removing the tax burden nationwide.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that a co-owner of a joint account cannot be charged under Section 138 NI Act unless their signature appears on the cheque, limiting liability to the actual drawer. This safeguards joint account holders from criminal prosecution for cheques they did not sign.

A foreign LL.B., even if recognised by the Bar Council of India, does not satisfy the ‘first degree’ requirement for entry into India’s three-year LL.B. programmes. The Bombay High Court upheld the university’s cancellation of the petitioner’s provisional admission on this basis. The decision narrows eligibility for overseas law graduates seeking domestic LL.B. enrollment.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a party cannot obtain an interim mandatory injunction to revive a determinable contract; the dispute must proceed to arbitration, with the Rs 1 lakh caution money kept in escrow. This curtails injunctive relief in commercial contracts and reinforces arbitration clauses.

Omaxe Ltd’s petition under Section 37(1)(c) was dismissed, leaving the arbitral award that orders the builder to pay compensation for delayed possession, with 15% interest, untouched. The ruling clarifies that courts may intervene only for evident misconduct or jurisdictional error, not merely to alter award amounts. Homebuyers and developers in builder-buyer agreements are directly impacted.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits setting aside an award only on patent illegality or public-policy grounds. Consequently, the appellant’s force-majeure claim and interest-rate dispute were dismissed, narrowing set-aside avenues for parties in commercial and real-estate arbitrations.

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is deemed applicable to appeals arising from suits filed before the Act’s commencement, even after the suits are re-numbered. Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, signalling that pre-Act commercial litigants cannot invoke the Act’s appeal provisions.

The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an interlocutory injunction in a separate trademark dispute does not disqualify a bidder and that a change in shareholding does not erase the bidder’s earlier project experience required under the tender. This clarifies that eligibility is judged on substantive qualifications, not on unrelated litigation or post-tender ownership changes, impacting all participants in government procurements.

A three-month limit on departmental suspension without statutory review is mandatory; exceeding it infringes Article 21 and renders the suspension void. The ruling protects Nagaland government employees from indefinite ‘deemed suspension’ while investigations are pending.

The Bombay High Court held that criminal prosecution under Section 26 of the SEBI Act is exclusive to SEBI, so an FIR alleging front-running cannot proceed without a formal SEBI complaint. This reinforces that special securities statutes override ordinary criminal provisions, limiting police initiation of such cases. The decision affects dealers, mutual-fund firms and any party subject to SEBI-triggered investigations.

Delhi High Court held that a sole arbitrator appointed solely by one party breaches Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, rendering the award void. It cautions that contract clauses permitting unilateral appointments are ineffective without a written waiver, impacting commercial arbitrations.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted several officials, ruling that mere administrative irregularities in a teacher recruitment process cannot satisfy the ‘dishonest or fraudulent intention’ element of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The decision narrows the Act’s reach, protecting officials from prosecution where only procedural lapses occur.

Bombay HC rules that part-time community health volunteers are employees under the Minimum Wages Act and must receive statutory minimum wages.