High Courts judgments

Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Rule 8 of the Endowments Lease Rules 2003, mandating public auction for temple land lease extensions beyond three years, even if enhanced rent and lessee investments are offered. The ruling reinforces transparency in temple land administration and curtails arbitrary lease extensions by the Commissioner.

Bombay High Court holds that employees of autonomous bodies like SIET are not entitled to government pension, even if their pay scales match state employees. The ruling clarifies that government servant status requires statutory recognition, not merely functional alignment, and rejects promissory estoppel claims for pension benefits.

Bombay High Court rules that pay protection for ex-servicemen under service regulations is not merely a safeguard but the basis for pay fixation in civilian employment. The judgment quashes unilateral pay reductions and directs refund of recovered amounts, reinforcing natural justice and uniform application of fitment tables for ex-servicemen.

Bombay High Court rules that delay in seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not automatically bar protection if critical evidence risks being destroyed. The court allowed preservation of records while rejecting blanket injunctions, emphasizing the need to balance contractual rights with evidentiary concerns in arbitration disputes.

Karnataka High Court upholds arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, ruling that simultaneous investigations by State and Central GST authorities do not render proceedings invalid. The judgment clarifies that dual enforcement does not constitute abuse of process, reinforcing powers to combat input tax credit fraud.

Bombay High Court rules that dissenting housing society members, even if non-signatories to a redevelopment agreement, must vacate flats under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act if the developer complies with the agreement and the majority approves redevelopment. The ruling clarifies that interim relief under Section 9 extends to non-signatories when the agreement's terms are legally binding on all members.

Bombay High Court rules that a prima facie breach of an LLP agreement, including expulsion clauses, entitles aggrieved partners to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The judgment clarifies that courts may restrain expelled partners from interfering with ongoing projects while preserving arbitration rights, setting a precedent for commercial disputes involving partnership expulsions.

Bombay High Court rules that ex-servicemen are entitled to pay protection including fitment benefits in revised pay scales, rejecting employer attempts to distinguish between 'pay protection' and 'pay fixation'. The judgment reinforces that arbitrary pay reductions violate natural justice and service law principles, ensuring ex-servicemen receive their due benefits without artificial distinctions.

Bombay High Court rules that an employer's failure to provide a fair opportunity to justify dismissal under the MRTU & PULP Act violates principles of natural justice, rendering reinstatement void. The court awarded Rs. 15 lakh compensation, balancing 16 years of service against unauthorized absence, setting a precedent for compensation in lieu of reinstatement where procedural fairness is breached.

Bombay High Court clarifies that Section 9 interim relief under the Arbitration Act mandates concrete evidence of asset diversion or financial instability, not just fear of dissipation. The ruling underscores that delays in seeking relief weaken claims of urgency, setting a stricter threshold for contractors and businesses seeking emergency protection.

Bombay High Court clarifies that wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be paid as an additional amount, not adjusted against salary, for dismissal approval. The ruling emphasizes that minor procedural deficits should not override approval for grave misconduct like corruption, ensuring employers comply strictly with payment obligations.

Allahabad High Court rules that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act can continue post-divorce if allegations relate to the period of marriage, dismissing a quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC.

Allahabad High Court grants permanent custody of minor to maternal aunt and her husband, prioritizing child's welfare and expressed preference over paternal relatives' visitation rights.

Allahabad High Court rules that constitutional courts should not direct subordinate courts to dispose of cases within a stipulated time, except in exceptional circumstances.

Allahabad High Court rules that under Article 227, no time-bound directions can be issued for disposal of cases except in exceptional circumstances, relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents.

Allahabad High Court rules that Permanent Lok Adalat must conduct mandatory conciliation under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act before passing orders, setting aside insufficiently reasoned order.

Allahabad High Court rules that constitutional courts should not fix time-bound schedules for subordinate courts' case disposal, except in exceptional circumstances.

Rajasthan High Court suspends conviction in a sexual assault case, emphasizing that hostile witnesses and absence of forensic corroboration undermine prosecution credibility. The ruling underscores that prolonged incarceration without appeal hearing warrants interim relief under Section 389 BNSS, particularly when DNA/FSL reports fail to support allegations.

Rajasthan High Court rules that mere refusal to marry after a false promise, without intentional instigation or active participation, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC. The judgment underscores that passive conduct alone cannot establish criminal liability for suicide abetment, impacting future prosecutions in similar cases.

Rajasthan High Court reinforces Election Commission of India's directive that Booth Level Officers must be appointed from local electors of the concerned constituency. The court quashed appointments violating this rule, emphasizing procedural compliance with EC guidelines for fair electoral administration.

Rajasthan High Court holds that child custody with a biological parent during marital discord does not amount to illegal detention under habeas corpus. The court emphasizes that custody disputes must be resolved through legal proceedings, not writ petitions, ensuring the child's welfare remains paramount.

Rajasthan High Court reinforces that contractual employees are entitled to full salary during maternity leave, directing payment within one month. The ruling sets a binding precedent for all contractual workers under the Medical and Health Department, ensuring compliance with maternity benefit norms.

Rajasthan High Court holds that a trial court cannot take cognizance of an offence based on a negative final report without recording specific reasons for disagreeing with the police report. The Court stayed criminal proceedings and directed mediation in a family dispute involving minor offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, emphasizing procedural fairness and the impact on the accused's career prospects.

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that couples in love marriages are entitled to state protection under Article 21, even against family threats. The ruling mandates police intervention to safeguard their right to life and liberty, relying on the landmark Lata Singh v. State of U.P. judgment.