High Courts judgments

The Delhi High Court ruled that a director’s resignation is a disputed factual question that must be examined during trial, not through interlocutory revision. Resignation alone cannot shield a director from Section 138 NI Act prosecution.

The JK High Court set aside the CAT order that regularised a long-serving casual driver as a driver, ordering regularisation as an orderly in the entry-level grade with arrears and a three-month deadline. The decision confirms that under Section 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 casual employees must be regularised at the lowest grade, shaping future cases.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate genuine urgent interim relief to retain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to satisfy the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Absent such urgency, the court revoked the leave and ordered the suit to be re-filed in the appropriate forum, tightening compliance with pre-litigation mediation for commercial disputes.

The Bombay High Court held that purchasers of assets auctioned under the SARFAESI Act have locus standi to file a writ petition for possession, directing state authorities to enforce the magistrate’s order. The decision empowers auction buyers to obtain physical possession directly, without relying on the secured creditor’s enforcement.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition under Section 528 of the BNS Act, holding that a civil property dispute cannot be criminalised and must be pursued in a civil forum. This limits the use of Section 528 to genuine criminal matters, affecting parties seeking FIRs over ownership conflicts.

Delhi HC set aside the 2005 Industrial Tribunal award that regularised a DTC driver, holding that mere continuity of service does not create a right to regularisation. The decision means employers need a statutory basis, not just tenure, to regularise temporary staff, affecting public-sector transport bodies and their workmen.

The Delhi High Court held that a trial court returning a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 can only adjudicate its own territorial jurisdiction, not that of other Delhi courts. This limits lower courts from pre-emptively deciding jurisdictional questions in commercial suits, affecting litigants and counsel across Delhi’s civil docket.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that a trademark’s earlier filing date under Section 18 overrides any later party’s prior-market-use defence under Section 34, confirming the registrar’s grant of ‘20-20’ to the first applicant. This clarifies that prior use does not defeat an earlier filing, guiding businesses on the primacy of registration dates in trademark disputes.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a cheating and forgery FIR in a family inheritance fight, ruling that criminal prosecution is an abuse of process where the dispute is purely civil. This bars the use of Section 482 CrPC to settle succession matters, protecting heirs from unwarranted criminal litigation.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an executor’s rights to the deceased’s property vest immediately on death, even before probate. It also held that a will’s registration is irrelevant for granting an ad-interim injunction to preserve the property. Executors can therefore enforce claims and restrain third parties prior to probate.

A Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling bars parties from using an Order VI Rule 17 amendment to replace a specific-performance claim with a monetary claim, preserving the original relief sought. This limits strategic pleading changes in property sale disputes, affecting plaintiffs seeking performance of contracts.

The High Court held that detaining an NDPS accused while trial delays are caused by the prosecution breaches Article 21’s speedy-trial guarantee. It granted regular bail, noting that Section 37’s strict bail rules cannot override fundamental liberty. The ruling shields accused from prosecution-driven postponements.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed that a co-sharer's pre-emption right, established before the 1995 Haryana amendment, remains enforceable despite the amendment's later enactment. This protects existing co-sharers from losing preferential purchase rights retroactively.

The NCDRC ruled that the insurer, not the claimant, must establish that a pre-existing disease was concealed when the policy was taken. This shifts the evidential burden onto insurers in death-claim disputes, safeguarding policyholders from arbitrary refusals.

The Odisha High Court ordered the state to execute OCL Iron & Steels Ltd.’s mining lease within eight weeks, finding that the selective refusal breached Article 14’s equality guarantee. This mandates uniform treatment for all applicants under the MMDR Act, affecting pending lease approvals across the state.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a lease for fishing rights cannot vest without the District Magistrate’s sanction, making the petitioner’s claim for refund of the auction deposit enforceable. This clarifies that the statutory condition precedent under the U.P. Revenue Code overrides any administrative refusal, protecting bidders in government lease auctions.

Uttarakhand HC directs police to assess and provide protection to inter-faith live-in couples under Article 21 if genuine threats exist, citing Lata Singh v. State of U.P. to uphold personal liberty against interference.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules authorities under BNSS Section 106 can only freeze bank accounts proportionate to disputed sums, unless exceptional circumstances justify broader action. The judgment also lays down 23 guidelines for grievance redressal and SOP compliance.

Orissa HC rules that denial of bail to a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 requires specific grounds, not just the gravity of the offence. The court emphasized that detention is an exception, not the rule, and vague safety concerns are insufficient.

Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that parity with co-accused justifies regular bail under BNSS 483 even for grave offences under BNS and Arms Act, setting a precedent for consistent bail jurisprudence.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that defects in serving notice for a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch do not invalidate proceedings unless substantial prejudice is proven. The judgment clarifies that procedural lapses under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act are not automatically fatal.

J&K&L High Court invalidated an unregistered mortgage-cum-sale agreement, affirming that the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997 overrides such instruments to protect migrant-owned land from unauthorized transfers. The ruling upholds eviction orders against occupants relying on defective agreements.

Punjab & Haryana HC orders NHAI to pay compensation for 9.33 marlas of land used for NH-64 widening despite exclusion from the original award, holding that unnotified use for public purpose mandates payment under the Act.

Delhi HC confirms tenancy rights over ownership claims, upholds eviction decree and awards Rs. 5,000/month mesne profits from Feb 2022. Landlords can enforce possession even if tenant disputes title transfer.