High Courts judgments

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.

The Calcutta HC held Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 inapplicable to partition suits where co-sharers have unity of possession, overturning the lower court’s order and clarifying that such suits must be decided on merits in partition proceeding.

Delhi HC quashed a ₹70 crore stamp duty demand on Freecharge Payment Technologies, ruling that Notification No.13 of 1937 exempts intra-group amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries from stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The decision benefits corporate groups undertaking internal restructurings by removing stamp duty on such schemes.

A pending civil suit on the same subject matter bars parallel arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It reinforces election of remedies barring duplicate forum litigation in partnership disputes.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that overlapping maintenance under the PWDV Act and Hindu Marriage Act must be set-off to prevent double recovery, and that PWDV welfare proceedings cannot be quashed for procedural lapses, protecting recipients and children’s interests.

The Court held that withdrawing a revision as 'not pressed' after an adverse order triggers CPC Order XXIII Rule 1’s rule of public policy, barring a fresh writ on the same cause. This stops litigants from evading adverse orders by abandoning revision.

The Allahabad HC ruled that the death of one joint decree-holder does not nullify execution proceedings; the surviving holder may proceed under Order XXI Rule 15 CPC. This clarifies that execution can continue without amending the decree to remove the deceased’s name, affecting property-dispute litigants.

HP HC held that complaint under Sec 141 NI Act must show averments linking a director to dishonoured cheque; mere resignation does not quash proceedings. This sets the evidentiary standard for director liability and shields officers from baseless claims.

Only the sanctioned basement area (59.02 sq.m.) qualifies as a flat under the MCS Act for membership, as held by the Bombay HC. It directed such area be treated as residential for redevelopment, impacting developers and flat owners seeking membership.

Attesting testimony proves will’s execution and outweighs expert opinion, Bombay High Court ruled. It clarified that mere illness like Parkinson’s does not establish unsound mind and that disinheriting a natural heir in favor of offspring is not inherently suspicious.

Under SARFAESI Act Section 14, a District Magistrate may only verify mortgage validity and statutory compliance; it cannot decide borrower objections. This ruling clarifies DM limits, protects banks' enforcement rights, and defines the scope of secured asset proceedings.

The Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR against lenders for abetment of suicide and extortion, ruling that mere harassment does not meet the legal threshold for abetment under Section 306 IPC without proof of instigation or intentional aid. The decision clarifies that creditors’ pressure alone cannot attract criminal liability for abetment, protecting lenders from baseless prosecution while emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of suicide instigation.

Gujarat HC quashed FIR over Buddha-printed cloth, holding that Section 295A IPC liability needs deliberate malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. This clarifies mens rea standard for religious offence cases, affecting future deity-image complaints.