10222 High Courts judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 29 of 426.
The Rajasthan High Court held that revenue must prove both elements of Sec 2(9)(A) of the Benami Prohibition Act and cannot rely on unexamined or retracted statements, even with a Sec 69 income-tax clearance. The ruling shields property owners from benami orders based on untested evidence.
A two-year unjustified hold on a No-Objection Certificate was deemed malice in law, breaching Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and the petition was dismissed after the NOC was finally granted. This ruling warns administrative authorities that arbitrary delays can be struck down as unconstitutional, affecting all applicants seeking statutory clearances.
Madras High Court affirmed specific performance of a 1998 sale deed, rejecting the appellant's forgery allegation and claim that the price was unconscionable. The ruling confirms that a valid deed cannot be set aside on the ground of alleged unfair price, securing the buyer's right to enforce transfer. This impacts parties seeking specific performance in property disputes.
Punjab HC sets aside Sec 304 IPC charge in a traffic fatality, holding that rash driving without intent falls under Sec 279/304-A, and discharges the accused.
The Tripura High Court ruled that a disciplinary compulsory retirement can be challenged only on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or insufficient evidence, and that a prior criminal acquittal does not invalidate the retirement order. This narrows judicial review of service-discipline actions, affecting government employees facing forced retirement.
The Delhi High Court lifted a stay on a Section 138 complaint, ruling that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s moratorium does not extinguish criminal liability for cheque bounce. This ensures borrowers cannot evade prosecution by invoking insolvency protection, affecting all parties in pending IBC cases.
The Delhi High Court overturned the lower court’s decree, granting a permanent injunction against Saurashtra Aaj Tak and confirming that a party with prior use of a name can pursue a passing-off action without a registered trademark. This protects established brands from later entrants using deceptively similar titles.
An appellate bench cannot replace a trial judge’s discretionary decision on an Order 39 application unless the lower order is perverse, preserving the trial court’s authority in specific relief matters. This limits higher courts from rewriting factual findings, affecting parties seeking interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act.
The Himachal High Court ruled that an appeal is extinguished if a deceased co-owner’s legal representative is not brought on record, preventing contradictory decrees. Parties must ensure representation of all owners before pursuing an appeal.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a handwriting expert cannot be tasked to compare signatures on a photocopied rent agreement, as the lack of the original document renders any opinion unreliable. It also clarified that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit a higher court to revisit evidential findings of the lower tribunal. This limits tenants and landlords from seeking expert analysis based solely on copies.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth does not qualify as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, setting aside the tribunal award and dismissing the employee’s claim as a workman. This limits industrial-dispute relief to commercial enterprises, affecting workers in religious institutions.
The Punjab & Haryana HC ordered Rs 72,500 plus interest for a pensioner’s emergency surgery at a non-empaneled hospital, holding it is reimbursable under the Central Government Health Scheme. The ruling confirms that an emergency certificate alone triggers CGHS liability, speeding up claim disposal for government staff and retirees.
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause remains enforceable even when a party does not appear, and it may appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6). This allows loan-assignment disputes to proceed in arbitration without delay, affecting lenders and assignees.
The Delhi High Court ruled that street vendors without a valid provisional certificate of vending cannot be compelled to take part in any future NDMC surveys, and such participation does not confer any right to continue vending at the same sites. This limits the ability of unauthorized vendors to influence municipal data collection and reinforces NDMC’s authority to enforce vending regulations.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that reservations for persons with physical disabilities are a horizontal reservation under Article 16(4) and therefore cannot be further earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. This invalidates any sub-reservation scheme that tries to allocate a share of disability seats to SCs, affecting future recruitment drives that combine disability and caste criteria.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that interest payable on land-acquisition compensation must be calculated on a simple-interest basis, not compounded, and that a petition filed after five years cannot raise a new objection. It also ordered correction of the arithmetic error under Section 152 CPC. The ruling affects all landowners receiving compensation under the 1894 Act.
Delhi High Court dismisses statutory bail petition, holding that commercial quantity of methamphetamine precludes bail under the NDPS Act.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a person who may become an accused cannot question a direction under CrPC 156(3) to investigate, and that a handwriting expert’s report must be supported by additional evidence before it can underpin a conviction. This limits challenges to investigative orders and raises the evidentiary threshold for expert testimony, affecting future forgery and fraud prosecutions.
When a sale certificate evidences ownership, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that factual findings on land title cannot be disturbed, and that jamabandi entries alone do not constitute proof of title. This safeguards owners relying on registered sale deeds against adverse claims based solely on revenue records.
Karnataka High Court ruled that when Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act offers an effective remedy, parties cannot approach the High Court under Article 226 for the same dispute. This safeguards the specialised bank-recovery framework and prevents parallel constitutional challenges, affecting banks and borrowers in enforcement proceedings.
The Madras High Court held that private sector banks do not perform a public function, so Article 226 cannot be invoked to compel them via mandamus for pension grievances. Employees must pursue relief in civil courts. This narrows the reach of the public function doctrine.
The Allahabad High Court upheld a conviction for kidnapping and rape, ruling that a minor's consent is legally irrelevant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, that the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony suffices for conviction, and that an appellate court cannot remedy the trial court's omission to impose a mandatory fine.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that the executive alone may adjust reservation allocations, barring the de-reservation of OBC-reserved DNB seats for unreserved candidates after counselling. This safeguards OBC candidates’ entitlement in medical postgraduate admissions and limits unilateral seat reallocation by institutions.
The Orissa High Court ruled that writs of certiorari under Article 226 cannot be invoked to set aside orders of civil courts, including Commercial Courts, directing aggrieved parties to seek supervisory relief under Article 227. This narrows the procedural route for challenging civil-court judgments.