High Courts judgments

Delhi High Court granted condonation of an 855-day filing delay, stressing that the Railways Act’s remedial purpose warrants a liberal approach. It also ruled that a passenger’s loss of a ticket does not bar a claim and that an accidental fall from a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ under the Act, expanding compensation eligibility for railway passengers.

The Delhi High Court held that a mere police complaint does not satisfy the ‘steps to prosecute’ requirement of Paragraph 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement, so the employee’s reinstatement order was set aside and the bank’s dismissal for misappropriating funds was affirmed, shaping future disciplinary actions in industrial disputes.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that a pregnancy of a girl under 18 cannot be terminated without the written consent of her guardian and that any such termination must be reported under the POCSO Act. This clarifies the dual pre-condition of guardian approval and statutory reporting for medical practitioners. The ruling binds doctors, hospitals and magistrates handling minor pregnancy cases.

Partial payment of the purchase price does not invalidate a sale deed, the Delhi High Court ruled, applying Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act to uphold the deed, possession and rent-arrears claims. This safeguards parties in property transactions from having agreements undone solely due to incomplete consideration.

Karnataka High Court ruled that the 30-day window to move a Section 33 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned, even in statutory arbitrations under the National Highways Act. It also clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such arbitrations. The decision tightens timelines for government-linked infrastructure disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a proclamation under Section 174-A IPC cannot be issued against a person already in judicial custody, and therefore quashed the FIR as an abuse of process. The decision prevents authorities from pursuing proclamation proceedings against custodial prisoners, safeguarding their right to due process.

The Jharkhand High Court ordered the bank to pay 6% per annum interest on the Rs 30.90 million e-auction refund, finding that keeping the money without a sale certificate constituted unjust enrichment and that the bank’s undertaking was void for duress. The ruling strengthens restitution duties for banks under the SARFAESI Act and protects auction bidders.

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking investigation of a returned candidate’s alleged asset concealment, holding that Article 329(b) precludes judicial review of post-election disclosures. Such grievances must be raised through a timely election petition under the Representation of the People Act, limiting the use of writ jurisdiction for election-related matters.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court raised the compensation for a 2002 motor-vehicle fatality, directing that loss of dependency, future income and other conventional heads be quantified on realistic actuarial assumptions. This clarifies how Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be applied when enhancing awards, benefiting claimants seeking higher damages from insurers.

A retired employee who previously signed an undertaking to return over-paid pension can be compelled to repay the amount even after leaving service. The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed that the undertaking survives retirement and is enforceable under the EOFP scheme. This clarifies that governments may recover excess pension from former staff who made such promises.

The Delhi High Court, hearing T-Mobile’s petition, ordered the Patent Office to use new guidelines for applying the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion. The guidelines set evidentiary standards and steps to separate non-technical mental steps from patent-eligible inventions, affecting all software-related patent applicants and examiners.

The Delhi High Court restored the ‘BLUE CHIP’ trademark, holding that removal without the Section 25(3) notice is unlawful. It clarified that the renewal window under Rule 64(3) begins from the registration date, not the filing date. Trademark owners now have clearer protection against improper removal.

The Madras High Court ruled that a Directorate of Enforcement committal petition under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is invalid if filed before the Special Court has taken cognizance and the requisite sanction is produced. This bars premature transfers of DA cases to Special Courts, affecting enforcement agencies and the accused.

Calcutta HC held that the limitation for specific-performance begins when the plaintiff first learned of the predecessor’s refusal in 2007, making the suit time-barred, while the defendants’ 2016 possession counter-claim fell within the 12-year period under Article 65 and was upheld, clarifying limitation start-points in property-sale disputes.

The Calcutta High Court issued a permanent injunction, holding that hotels must secure their own copyright licence to broadcast music in guest-room cable systems. Payment of cable subscription fees does not satisfy the statutory licence requirement, exposing hotels and operators to infringement liability.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the death sentences of Pardeep and Sagar, holding that the trial court’s failure to present all incriminating material under Section 313 CrPC is a curable irregularity. It ordered a fresh sentencing hearing, indicating that such procedural lapses do not automatically sustain capital punishment.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a judge’s order extending custodial investigation under UAPA’s Sec 43D(2)(b) is merely interlocutory, so an appeal under Sec 21 of the NIA Act is barred. Parties must instead seek a revision under CrPC Sec 482. This limits immediate appellate relief in NIA investigations.

The Bombay High Court ruled that proceeds from selling flats in a completed real-estate project are capital gains, not business income, because the seller’s intent was investment and the holding period was long. Hence, tax authorities must prove a trade-like activity, and developers will be taxed only on capital gains.

Appointments of arbitrators made unilaterally before the 23 Oct 2015 amendment are not void, provided the arbitration agreement either names the arbitrator or permits one party to appoint. Only appointments lacking any contractual basis are set aside. This clarifies the enforceability of older arbitral clauses for parties and courts handling award execution.

Delhi High Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not arise automatically. Material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements created reasonable doubt, mandating the benefit of doubt. The decision narrows the scope of the presumption, impacting future POCSO prosecutions.

By finding the Director General lacked authority under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the Delhi High Court struck down the charge-sheet against the senior ICMR deputy director-general and nullified the whole inquiry. The ruling clarifies that only the authority expressly designated by the CCS (CCA) Rules can initiate disciplinary proceedings, impacting all government servants subject to similar rules.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that under Clause 6.10(a) of the 2015 Electricity Supply Code, entities acquiring power connections through auction are not responsible for any electricity dues incurred before the auction date. Consequently, two demand notices were set aside and the petitioner was ordered a full refund in five instalments. This protection applies to all current and future auction-based electricity consumers in Jharkhand.

An insurer must honour compensation even if the driver held a counterfeit licence, with the award raised to Rs 4,63,500 plus interest. The decision upholds the pay-and-recover rule, shifting recovery burden to the insurer. Claimants in motor accidents gain stronger protection.

Delhi High Court ruled that a plaintiff can obtain a Section 12A exemption when a continuing IP infringement case demands urgent interim relief, permitting the court to order release of title deeds against cash security. This clarifies that mediation waiver is available for time-sensitive IP disputes, affecting commercial litigants seeking swift injunctive relief.