High Courts judgments

The Chhattisgarh HC held that denying interim custody of a seized vehicle solely because the offence is grave violates BNSS 497(1). It ordered police to release the Tata Safari to the registered owner, ruling that custody cannot be withheld on mere speculation of misuse.

A unilateral arbitrator appointment violating Section 12(5) renders award non-est, the Delhi HC held, requiring setting aside despite Section 34 challenge, meaning flawed appointments cannot be cured partially, affecting parties relying on awards.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

The Calcutta High Court held that COVID-19 limitation relaxations cannot revive suits time-barred pre-pandemic, dismissing an appeal delayed by 2179 days and ruling that unsubstantiated age/ill-health claims lack sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act.

Uttarakhand HC held that a substantive residence, even if temporary, satisfies territorial jurisdiction under Section 126(1) CrPC for Section 125 maintenance claims, overturning the Family Court, Nainital’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

HC quashed selection of candidate for EWS reserved Assistant Professor post, ruling Section 3(3) Uttarakhand EWS Act, 2019 bars bypassing eligible EWS applicant when no suitability cut off exists. It safeguards EWS reservation rights in public jobs.

The Delhi High Court held that a tenant’s unequivocal denial of the landlord-tenant relationship triggers forfeiture under Section 111(g) TPA, overcoming the Section 50 DRC Act bar. The decision lets landlords regain possession on repayment of the security deposit, impacting tenants who deny the tenancy.

A transfer after execution notice does not defeat execution under Section 52 TPA, Delhi HC upheld the auction sale of an undivided share for ₹84.5 lakh. The ruling confirms pendente lite transfers cannot stall execution, affecting judgment debtors and transferees.

Denying IVF solely because husband exceeds age limit under Section 21(g) of ART Act 2021 violates wife’s reproductive autonomy; age limits apply individually, allowing couples with one eligible partner to access assisted reproductive technology.

The Orissa High Court quashed the Collector's eviction order and show cause notice, holding that under the OPLE Act, 1972 only the Tahasildar may issue eviction notices after giving reasonable opportunity. The ruling affects landowners and authorities in Odisha, clarifying that eviction proceedings must commence at the Tahasildar level, not the Collector.

Municipal authorities must give a hearing before sealing a banquet hall, the Jharkhand HC held, emphasizing due process under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and Bye-Laws, 2016; the ruling affects owners and users, who must receive notice and a hearing.

The Madras High Court held that a temple’s letter lacking title proof cannot trigger the Section 22-A bar to registration. It also ruled that final orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal are binding and cannot be challenged collaterally.

The Madras High Court ruled that a registered will cannot be presumed genuine in partition proceedings and must be proved strictly under Sections 63 of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act. This clarification affects legal heirs who may now claim a one tenth share in the deceased's property when such proof is lacking.

A pending SARFAESI appeal or criminal case cannot block mutation, as the Orissa HC held mutation proceedings fiscal and do not affect title. The court restored rights and ordered the Tahasildar to correct the Record of Rights within two weeks.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a birth certificate proving Indian birth overrides an adverse police verification report for passport applications under Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It directed the Regional Passport Officer, Shimla to conduct fresh verification within two weeks and issue the passport, affecting applicants whose citizenship is questioned despite documentary proof of birth in India.

Section 32A IBC grants statutory immunity to a successor corporate debtor after an approved resolution plan, as held by the Orissa HC. This bars prosecution, requires trial court to vacate cognizance, and shields acquirers from legacy liability.

The Delhi High Court quashed a Bank of Baroda Look Out Circular after the CBI completed its investigation, holding that an LOC cannot be maintained merely because trial is pending and affects individuals facing travel restrictions during trial.

Delhi HC held that under Sections 101 and 111 Evidence Act, the burden to prove good faith in a fiduciary transaction lies on the party in confidence. It cancelled a daughter’s sale deed for inadequate consideration, restoring possession to legal heirs.

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction provisions under the Senior Citizens Act, confirming that tribunals may direct a respondent to vacate premises to protect a senior citizen’s life and property. It clarified that such orders do not infringe the Domestic Violence Act’s shared household safeguard, impacting seniors facing abuse from co-habitants.

Uttarakhand High Court held that trials under Section 143(3) of the NI Act must conclude within six months. It directed the lower court to expedite proceedings, reinforcing statutory mandate for expeditious trial impacting NI Act cases with alleged delay.

Calcutta HC held that a student with 62.61% attendance is ineligible for condonation under university rules requiring a 65% threshold for B.Com-LLB courses. The judgment upholds the attendance requirement, orders publication of the withheld results, and affects students seeking condonation for insufficient attendance.

Uttarakhand HC upheld a father’s conviction for attempted rape under IPC 376 r/w 511 and POCSO §10, holding that lack of spermatozoa does not discredit the prosecutrix’s consistent, corroborated testimony. The ruling clarifies that victim testimony alone can sustain a conviction, affecting prosecutions where medical evidence is absent.

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the respondent did not appear, holding that the court’s inquiry is confined to whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie exists. This clarifies that a party’s absence does not bar appointment and limits judicial scrutiny at this stage, affecting contractors and respondents in arbitration disputes.

The Delhi HC held that a prima facie case under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act warrants interim relief, directing arbitration and restraining the respondent from dealing with the sub-leased premises, aiding landlords to secure interim measures.