10222 High Courts judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 28 of 426.
The Bombay High Court set aside a one-year blacklisting of a contractor because the municipal corporation failed to issue a specific show-cause notice, breaching natural-justice norms. The ruling obliges public bodies to afford bidders a hearing before imposing blacklist penalties, safeguarding procedural fairness for all prospective contractors.
The Gujarat High Court denied the State’s plea to condone a 1,790-day delay in land-acquisition appeals, holding that gross negligence is not a bona-fide cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ruling prevents governments from using negligence to revive time-barred appeals, impacting pending acquisition cases.
The Delhi High Court held that a permissive licence does not create adverse possession or trigger the Limitation Act’s time bar, leaving the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the lease-hold suit property. Licensees cannot claim possession on that basis, clarifying rights in lease-hold disputes.
Landlords cannot rely on a claimed bonafide requirement for eviction if the need is not genuine or if they later secure alternative premises or move abroad. The Delhi High Court set aside dismissal orders in three eviction cases, ruling that such subsequent events defeat the Section 25-B(8) defence. Tenants in similar disputes gain protection.
When a title deed is declared void, the court applied the 12-year limitation under Article 65 for a declaration suit, overturning the lower court’s dismissal on limitation grounds. This establishes that possession claims cannot rely on a shorter limitation, guiding litigants seeking declaratory relief in property disputes.
The Jharkhand High Court set aside FIRs under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that without proof of dishonest intent at the moment the development agreement was executed, criminal liability cannot arise. Poor workmanship or later threats do not satisfy the deception element, shielding builders where intent is absent.
Even though the employer failed to obtain prior approval under Sec 33(2)(b) before dismissing the employee, the High Court ruled that the workman remains entitled to back wages and that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to assess misconduct. This protects dismissed workers from losing monetary relief due to procedural lapses by the employer.
The High Court ruled that any order restoring tribal land must be based on a full enquiry under Section 170-B, not merely on pre-1959 revenue records or the absence of a registered deed. This safeguards tribal claimants by ensuring proper verification of possession before title is reinstated.
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the magistrate’s orders remanding Jitesh Anand to police and judicial custody, declaring his arrest unlawful for breaching Article 22(2) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The decision underscores that any detention without a valid transit remand is unconstitutional, mandating immediate release on bail.
The Bombay High Court held that cosmetic changes to an infringing trademark-like altering font or colour-do not meet Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC standards for an interim injunction. Thus, only substantive cessation of the infringing use avoids contempt and civil imprisonment.
The Allahabad High Court set aside a life sentence because the FIR was lodged after the incident and key eyewitnesses were not present at the time, rendering the evidence unreliable. This ruling stresses that a contemporaneous FIR and credible witnesses are essential for upholding murder convictions, offering relief to appellants facing similar evidentiary deficiencies.
Bombay HC affirmed the May 2026 notification barring sugar exports, holding that no vested right or legitimate expectation arises from a temporary export policy. The ruling keeps the export ban in force, affecting all domestic sugar exporters.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a petition to quash an extortion FIR, ruling that a private settlement cannot extinguish liability for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 of the BNSS. This clarifies that compromise is ineffective where the offence is non-compoundable, affecting victims and accused in similar cases.
Punjab High Court ordered the state to implement the 6th Pay Commission’s dearness allowance and dearness relief on the central pattern and declared the age-tiered liquidation plan unconstitutional under Article 14, directing immediate payment of all arrears with interest. The ruling affects all Punjab government employees awaiting these allowances.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court raised the award for a two-and-a-half-year-old victim, ordering compensation for future loss of earnings and attendant-care fees in addition to interest, thereby expanding the basis for personal injury damages under Section 166. This sets a higher benchmark for claims involving child victims and similar loss-of-income calculations.
The Delhi High Court set aside two FIRs lodged for the same Independence Day procession, holding that successive FIRs for a single continuous transaction breach the test of sameness and double-jeopardy safeguards. The ruling prevents duplicate FIR filings on identical facts, protecting accused persons from multiple prosecutions.
Delhi High Court affirmed that bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act can be denied unless the prosecution shows a fresh or ongoing unlawful act by the alleged syndicate, reflecting the stringent threshold of Section 21(4). This narrows bail relief for individuals, including elected representatives, charged under MCOCA.
Delhi High Court clarifies the burden of proof for bona fide passengers and defines untoward incidents under the Railways Act, setting aside a Tribunal order.
Delhi High Court partially set aside the arbitral award, ruling that damages awarded without establishing actual loss and interest counted as damages breach Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The decision restricts arbitral tribunals to grant only loss-based compensation, with interest payable separately, affecting future construction and contract disputes.
Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitral award not incorporated into an approved IBC resolution plan is legally extinguished, and ordered the return of the petitioner’s security deposit of INR 5.52 crore with accrued interest. The decision clarifies that Section 34 petitions become infructuous when the award is omitted from the resolution plan, impacting parties in corporate insolvency arbitrations.
The Delhi High Court partially vacated the NHAI-Louis Berger award, finding that the tribunal’s grant of operation-and-maintenance relief exceeded the matters arbitrable under the contract and breached the equal-treatment rule of Section 18. The construction-payment portion of the award remains intact, signalling that arbitral tribunals cannot extend relief beyond the defined scope in infrastructure consultancy disputes.
A gift deed that obliges the donee to maintain the donor and his spouse becomes void if that obligation is breached. The Himachal High Court reinstated the trial court’s decree, confirming that the donor’s right to revoke the gift under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act stands even after the deed’s execution. This clarifies that beneficiaries of conditional gifts must honour maintenance promises or risk losing title.
The Gauhati High Court nullified a tender cancellation because the authority failed to give reasons as mandated by Section 26(3) of the Assam Procurement Act, 2017, and ordered the contract awarded to the petitioner, the lowest evaluated bidder. The ruling underscores the duty to communicate cancellation reasons, protecting bidders in future procurements.
Owners of houses built on land acquired for the Punashi Dam project are entitled to compensation even when the underlying settlement was illegal under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The Jharkhand High Court ordered payment within sixteen weeks, affirming that illegal settlement does not bar the right to fair compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. This safeguards similarly situated landholders across Jharkhand.