High Courts judgments

The Patna HC held that post-registration, authorities lack jurisdiction to levy deficit stamp duty under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and quashed the orders demanding it. It directed refund of any pre-deposited amounts within eight weeks, affecting buyers, sellers and revenue officials in Bihar.

A wife's safety apprehension due to brother-in-law's conduct is a lawful cause for withdrawal under Section 281 Mohammedan Law; the Jharkhand HC overturned a restitution of conjugal rights decree, noting threats from in-laws can defeat claims in matrimonial disputes.

The Allahabad HC quashed a FIR direction against a police officer, holding that a magistrate must first obtain the superior’s report and the public servant’s version before invoking BNSS 175(4), safeguarding public servants and curbing FIR orders.

A partition suit is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff was unaware of his exclusion from joint family property, the Bombay HC held, stressing that knowledge of exclusion is essential for a limitation defence.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the first proviso to Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income tax Act 1961 grants banks an option to claim additional provision for doubtful or loss assets, allowing cumulative deduction within statutory limits. This clarifies that the proviso is not an alternative to the main clause, benefitting banking assessees seeking higher tax deductions.

The Madras HC held that a minor’s Indian citizenship is not lost when a parent acquires foreign citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed the passport office to renew the minor’s passport within three months.

The Allahabad HC held a writ under Article 226 for admitted dues maintainable despite state's plea, directing payment of Rs 18,79,197 at 6% interest within three months and affirming that financial constraints cannot override a settled legal obligation.

Delhi HC held that the defendant-wife could reside in the suit property under Section 39 TPA, noting that a Mohammedan will bequeathing over one-third share needs heir consent and an unregistered surrender declaration is void. This clarifies spousal residence rights in property disputes.

The Delhi High Court held a writ petition maintainable against an ARC for alleged fraud in security-interest creation, despite SARFAESI’s remedy. It directed exclusion of the petitioner’s one-third share from the e-auction.

The Delhi HC set aside the Special Court’s dismissal of a disability harassment complaint, holding that ignoring post-RPwD Act allegations made the order unsustainable. It remanded the case for a fresh review under Sections 92 and 84 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash an FIR for serious injuries such as a skull fracture, even if the parties have settled, the Delhi High Court held. The judgment emphasizes that grave bodily harm outweighs compromise, limiting the use of Section 482 in violent offences and guiding future quashal petitions.

Orissa HC quashed cognizance against school staff, holding a mere warning/reprimand lacks mens rea for abetment of suicide under Sections 107/3(5) BNS, and that disciplinary action without criminal intent cannot sustain such charges.

Allahabad HC held mother, as natural guardian under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, entitled to custody when access is denied, overturning Family Court’s refusal and granting her custody visitation for paternal grandmother for child welfare.

The Madras HC held that 'spell' in Rule 22(2)(c) of the TN Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 means an instalment, entitling prisoners to forty days of leave in two instalments, and granted the petitioner fourteen days of leave without escort.

The Gujarat High Court ruled insurer liability starts on premium receipt, not policy effective date, overturning the Tribunal’s denial of compensation for a 1990 accident. It modified the MACT award to Rs 83,000 with 12% interest, payable within eight weeks.

The Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.

The Delhi High Court held that a widow's right to reside in the matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act is independent of the husband's ownership, requiring alternate accommodation or ₹15,000/month rent before eviction. This strengthens protection for widows against arbitrary dispossession.

The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR against police officers, holding that magistrates must apply judicial mind under BNSS 175(3)-(4) and consider the superior officer's report and the public servant's explanations before directing registration of an FIR arising from official duties. The ruling safeguards public servants from mala fide prosecutions while ensuring accountability.

The Calcutta High Court directed police to ensure senior citizens’ entry into their self-acquired property within three days’ notice, providing assistance if obstructed, while preserving any ongoing matrimonial proceedings.

Delhi HC quashed an FIR under Section 174A IPC after finding that summons were sent to the wrong address, meaning the accused was wrongly declared an absconder. The ruling stresses that under Section 82 CrPC, a court must objectively verify residence before labelling someone an absconder and issuing a proclamation.

A Section 16 jurisdictional objection decision constitutes an interim award challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The MP HC ruling lets parties challenge such jurisdictional orders, affecting arbitration under the Act.

The Delhi HC held that a Section 34 petition is barred only if filed after 90 days from receipt of the award, not its date, and directors are liable only with a personal guarantee or fraud, clarifying limitation and narrowing director exposure in loan agreements.

Patna HC quashed a 75% pension cut, ruling departmental proceeding on 2006-09 allegations initiated in 2015 was time-barred under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules and violated natural justice by ignoring defence and relying on ex-parte report.

A never-consummated marriage with 84 days’ separation and a MOU settlement showing no reconciliation amounts to exceptional hardship, permitting waiver of the one-year period under HMA Sec 14(1) for an immediate divorce petition, as held by Delhi HC.