High Courts judgments

Delhi HC ruled that a CGST penalty must be contested through a Section 107 appeal and that the pre-deposit requirement is governed by the original provision, staying recovery until the taxpayer deposits 25 % of the penalty. The order clarifies the procedural path for taxpayers while the scope of Section 122(1) remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside an FIR registered under Sec 209 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita after the complainant withdrew the underlying Sec 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint, deeming further prosecution an abuse of process. It also vacated the proclamation of the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The ruling protects parties where a civil settlement leads to withdrawal of the original NI Act complaint.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a compact-disc and transcript alleging the wife’s adultery can be used as secondary evidence and must be considered when deciding interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, overturning the Family Court’s order. This establishes that secretly captured electronic material is permissible evidence in maintenance disputes, affecting spouses seeking or contesting maintenance.

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s summons to a former director, ruling that without explicit allegations tying him to the cheque-bounce offence, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed. Plaintiffs must detail the director’s personal role to sustain a summons. The decision limits blanket liability of resigned directors in NI-Act proceedings.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the trial court’s power to recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC to examine a promissory note, rejecting the Section 482 petition. This clarifies that procedural objections cannot bar recall when the evidence is vital, affecting parties in ongoing criminal trials.

The Delhi High Court ruled that fees charged by an advocate serving as an interim resolution professional are subject to GST under the normal forward-charge mechanism, rejecting the IBBI’s reverse-charge classification. Consequently, such professionals must issue GST-compliant invoices and remit tax themselves, affecting all lawyer-insolvency professionals and the corporate debtors they handle.

The Gauhati High Court affirmed that an individual labelled a foreigner must demonstrate Indian citizenship, and that irregularities in service of notice do not invalidate a Foreigners Tribunal’s ex-parte finding. This places the evidential burden on the accused and upholds procedural validity for similar citizenship disputes.

A Section 11(6) petition is limited to a prima-facie test of the arbitration agreement, with limitation defences outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also held that non-signatory promoters can be treated as parties to the arbitration. This narrows Section 11 scope and extends arbitral reach to promoters.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a hotel lease dispute remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, rejecting the view that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies. Landlords and tenants in Rajasthan must therefore seek relief from the Rent Tribunal, not commercial courts, for such lease matters.

Even though the Punjab & Haryana High Court condoned a 1,388-day delay in filing the Section 54 appeal, it ruled that such condonation does not trigger interest on the awarded compensation. The decision clarifies that delay relief and interest entitlement are separate legal concepts, denying landowners any additional monetary award for the period of delay.

A photocopy of a collaboration agreement cannot be treated as a dutiable instrument, so the stamp duty and penalty imposed were set aside and refunded with interest. This clarifies that only original, registered instruments attract stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, affecting parties filing such agreements.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a dispute over unpaid industrial oil supplies is a civil matter, so the criminal case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was dismissed. This clarifies that commercial payment conflicts cannot be pursued as cheating or criminal breach of trust without clear criminal intent, safeguarding businesses from misuse of criminal law.

The Calcutta High Court set aside a bank’s SARFAESI notice, ruling that under the RBI’s Master Circular an account can be classified as non-performing only after a continuous 90-day default. This safeguards borrowers from premature NPA status and compels banks to follow RBI guidelines.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that compensation for motor accident deaths must incorporate projected future earnings, loss of consortium and statutory interest, establishing a detailed methodology for 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act. This broadens award calculations, benefiting claimants and guiding tribunals and lower courts in future motor accident cases.

Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that while Sec 50 mandates informing a suspect of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, failure to do so alone does not invalidate a trial court's finding of reasonable doubt. The ruling limits the fatal impact of such procedural lapses in NDPS cases.

The Delhi High Court ruled that co-accused statements, call-detail records and modest money transactions do not constitute substantive proof of a drug-kingpin, granting regular bail where no narcotics were seized and the charge sheet is unfiled. This narrows the evidentiary bar for bail in NDPS prosecutions.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the teacher’s conviction, ruling that a trustworthy child’s statement, even without corroborative evidence, meets the evidentiary threshold under the POCSO Act. It further held that the statutory presumption of guilt in Section 29 remains valid when the child’s testimony is reliable, strengthening the evidentiary position of minor victims in future cases.

A Delhi High Court ruling confirms that an employee who voluntarily retires after 25 years of service remains eligible for post-retirement medical facilities, declaring the 2010 amendment that removed ‘resignation’ from Rule 8.4 of the Medical Attendance Rules 2009 void. The decision obliges the Centre for Railway Information Systems to activate and fund the scheme for the retiree and spouse, setting a precedent for similar public-sector bodies.

The Delhi High Court upheld a Look Out Circular restraining a garment exporter, holding that review is confined to the circular's legality and a reasonable belief of economic loss, not the adequacy of the underlying material. This narrows judicial scrutiny of LOCs, impacting exporters and others subject to travel bans under the economic-interest clause.

The Patna High Court set aside a bail order that required the accused husband to pay monthly maintenance, ruling that such a condition lies beyond the scope of Section 438 CrPC and must be decided by a family court under the maintenance provisions. This clarifies that anticipatory bail cannot be used to enforce maintenance obligations, affecting defendants in dowry and domestic-violence matters.

The Bombay High Court quashed municipal notices to acquire part of a privately owned factory for road widening. It ruled that Sections 297 and 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act apply only to existing public streets, so they cannot be used to take private land that is not a street, protecting owners from unlawful acquisition.

The Patna High Court quashed the expulsion, ruling that a private unaided school must follow natural-justice safeguards before dismissing a student, thereby extending Article 226’s writ reach to private schools delivering public education.

The Allahabad HC ruled that Section 34 IPC requires a functional link to the crime; mere presence or being armed is insufficient for common-intention liability. Accordingly, Harish Chandra was acquitted of murder. Prosecutors must now prove direct participation in joint offences.

The Allahabad High Court quashed a private defamation suit under Section 500 IPC, holding that complaints against public servants acting in official capacity are barred by Section 199(2) CrPC and the fifth exception to Section 499 IPC. This shields officials from civil liability for statements made while performing their duties, limiting private plaintiffs’ recourse.