High Courts judgments

Bombay High Court holds that the Industrial Court cannot deny reinstatement without first resolving the dispute over whether resignations were tendered. The ruling mandates payment of settlement benefits with 6% interest to workers, reinforcing procedural fairness in unfair labour practice disputes under the MRTU & PULP Act.

Bombay HC's Nagpur Bench granted bail to an accused in a Rs. 1.58 crore Ponzi scheme, recognizing his minor role and victim-like status in the fraudulent network marketing scheme. The court held that mere signatory status without active involvement in the primary fraud does not justify prolonged detention under BNS, MPID Act, and IT Act.

Kerala High Court upholds freezing of a vehicle under the NDPS Act, ruling that the accused failed to discharge the burden of proving the legitimate source of funds used for its purchase. The judgment reinforces that property linked to narcotics trafficking can be seized unless the accused provides credible evidence of lawful acquisition.

Kerala High Court transfers matrimonial proceedings from Nedumangad to Mavelikkara Family Court, reaffirming that the wife’s convenience is paramount under Section 24 CPC. The ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing the principle that matrimonial disputes must prioritize the wife’s accessibility to justice, especially when travel poses undue hardship.

Bombay High Court rules that failure to prepare a waiting list under a recruitment advertisement does not extinguish a candidate's right to appointment if a vacancy arises within the operative period, even if a subsequent advertisement is issued. The judgment reinforces statutory compliance in public recruitment, ensuring transparency and fairness for reserved category candidates.

Kerala High Court reaffirms that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires strict proof of both demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant. The ruling underscores that mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not suffice for conviction, impacting anti-corruption prosecutions.

Kerala High Court dismisses plea for inclusion in KEAM 2026 rank list, ruling that failure to upload qualifying marks within the stipulated timeline is fatal to admission eligibility. The judgment reinforces strict procedural compliance in competitive entrance exams, impacting thousands of aspirants.

Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench upholds land acquisition for a Dr. Ambedkar mural, ruling that beautification and development of public spaces constitute 'public purpose' under the RFCTLARR Act. The judgment reinforces procedural compliance even after ordinance lapse, impacting landowners and government acquisition projects.

Allahabad High Court directs competent authorities to execute Section 14 SARFAESI Act orders within four weeks, mandating police assistance for secured asset possession. The ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court's C. Bright precedent, emphasizing the duty of nodal officers to facilitate recovery without legal impediments.

Allahabad High Court invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to modify sentences of elderly appellants after a 40-year pendency, prioritizing reformative justice over imprisonment despite conviction. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in balancing punishment with rehabilitation for aged offenders.

Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition, holding that if a minor is found to be major during investigation, her consent and marriage to an adult may not attract POCSO Act provisions. The ruling emphasizes radiological age verification over FIR allegations, reinforcing the corpus' right to liberty and free will.

Bombay High Court rules that the 2022 amendment to Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which bars appeals for awards below Rs. 1 lakh, applies to pending appeals filed before the amendment. The decision impacts insurers and claimants by dismissing appeals involving smaller compensation amounts, even if filed prior to the amendment.

Bombay High Court rules that call detail records (CDR) without corroborative evidence cannot prove collusion under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, granting anticipatory bail in a murder case. The judgment underscores the need for substantive proof beyond mere telephonic contact to implicate an accused in serious offences.

Bombay High Court ruled that bail cannot be denied based solely on circumstantial evidence unless it directly links the accused to the crime. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's presence in the vehicle or involvement in the murder, reinforcing the threshold for denying bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Kerala High Court reinforces Store Purchase Manual provisions, mandating annual procurement estimates based on 3-5 years' consumption data to prevent ad-hoc purchases. The ruling directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to implement a digitised inventory system, ensuring fiscal discipline and transparency in public asset management.

Allahabad High Court extends probation under the Probation of Offenders Act to appellants despite a 40-year pendency, emphasizing reformative justice over punitive imprisonment. The ruling sets aside imprisonment while upholding convictions under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC, reinforcing judicial discretion in sentencing even in delayed appeals.

Allahabad High Court rules that government servants, including MBBS doctors with over five years of service, are entitled to three years of extraordinary leave for postgraduate studies under Clause 3 of the Government Order dated 10.02.2022, even if they do not claim service weightage. The ruling mandates leave approval regardless of weightage claims, reinforcing service jurisprudence for medical officers.

Kerala High Court rules that banks can reject educational loan applications under the IBA Model Scheme if the co-borrower has a low credit score, reinforcing compliance with banking regulations. The judgment underscores the legal validity of creditworthiness assessments in loan disbursements, impacting students and co-borrowers reliant on such schemes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces that retired government employees are entitled to annual increments due on the day following superannuation, aligning with Supreme Court rulings in Director (ADMN) and HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani and Union of India v. M. Siddaraj. The judgment mandates immediate implementation of the state circular directing payment of such increments, though arrears and interest may be denied for delayed claims.

Rajasthan High Court rules that service experience gained through placement agencies must be considered for contractual hiring under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Civil Posts Rules, 2022, ensuring fair employment rights for contractual workers. The decision reinforces administrative compliance with service law and prevents arbitrary exclusion of valid work experience.

Rajasthan High Court rules that notional benefits, once granted to a government employee based on inter se merit, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn without misrepresentation or fraud. The judgment reinforces that seniority and consequential benefits, once accorded, are vested rights protected under settled precedents like Om Prakash, Hemlata Shrimali, and Suman Bai.

The Rajasthan High Court stayed a National Commission for Homeopathy circular that barred PG homeopathy graduates from unlisted colleges from teaching roles, emphasizing natural justice and regulatory compliance. The interim order ensures affected graduates retain eligibility pending final adjudication, setting a precedent for fair procedural review in professional regulatory disputes.

Rajasthan High Court held that mixing samples from multiple seized bags of contraband violates the mandatory procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, rendering the conviction vulnerable. The Court suspended the sentence, emphasizing strict compliance with sampling protocols to ensure fair trial rights.

Allahabad High Court sets aside an appeal against acquittal under Section 364 IPC, ruling that family disputes require closer examination of witness credibility and adverse inferences for non-examination of key witnesses. The judgment reinforces that appellate courts must apply stricter evidentiary standards in cases involving familial relationships to prevent miscarriage of justice.