High Courts judgments

Bombay High Court rules that builders cannot seek vacation of property attachment orders under MahaRERA without first complying with recovery certificates. The judgment reinforces strict enforcement of consumer rights, mandating full payment of dues before any relief is granted to defaulting developers.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a protest petition without first examining the police 'B' report, reinforcing the principle of natural justice in criminal proceedings. This judgment mandates judicial scrutiny of closure reports before accepting complaints, impacting procedural fairness in criminal trials.

Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench sets aside a land acquisition compensation dismissal where claimants were denied a fair hearing due to their advocate's sudden withdrawal. The court ruled that procedural fairness mandates remand for fresh evidence, ensuring parties do not suffer for counsel's errors.

The Karnataka High Court has directed Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to continue hearing claim petitions filed after the six-month limitation period under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, but strictly prohibited them from issuing final awards until the Supreme Court resolves the maintainability question in SLPs 8412-8413/2023. This interim framework protects claimants' access to justice while preserving the Supreme Court's ultimate authority on statutory limitation, affecting insurers, victims, and tribunals nationwide.

Bombay High Court dismisses a PIL seeking recovery of excess payments made to retired Class-III/IV employees, reinforcing the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih judgment that bars recovery from low-income employees for employer errors. The ruling underscores the limited scope of PILs in service matters and protects vulnerable employees from financial hardship due to administrative mistakes.

Bombay High Court underscores that the welfare of a minor child prevails over procedural police discretion, directing disciplinary action against an SHO for refusing to register a kidnapping complaint. The ruling reinforces that habeas corpus petitions involving minors demand immediate judicial intervention, not bureaucratic dismissal.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that landlords asserting proprietary rights under Article 300A must first submit a formal representation to the State under Section 43(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act before seeking judicial intervention. This establishes a mandatory administrative gateway, preventing direct writ petitions and reinforcing procedural due process in land disputes involving tenancy restrictions.

Bombay High Court rules that functional disability in motor accident claims must align with the medical board’s certificate, not private assessments. The judgment reinforces that tribunals must accept board-certified disability percentages as conclusive evidence unless proven fraudulent, impacting compensation calculations for claimants.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused in a ₹1.95 crore digital gold fraud, conditioning release on depositing ₹13 lakh of alleged proceeds and mandatory monthly police reporting. This sets a precedent for financial accountability measures in cyber fraud bail orders, reinforcing that even non-violent digital crimes may require active restitution and surveillance as bail conditions under the new BNSS framework.

Karnataka High Court grants three-week transit anticipatory bail to a petitioner facing arrest in Haryana over a business dispute wrongly registered as a criminal offence, reaffirming that civil disputes cannot be criminalised. The ruling underscores the need to approach jurisdictional courts for substantive relief under BNSS.

Bombay High Court rules that denying pension benefits to retired teachers on financial grounds, while granting them to similarly situated employees, constitutes hostile discrimination. The judgment mandates equal treatment under the Pension-Cum-Gratuity Scheme, reinforcing that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional equality.

Bombay High Court quashes FIR under Sections 324 and 506 IPC after sisters reconcile, holding that compounding of offences under Section 528 BNSS applies even post-investigation. The ruling reinforces that criminal proceedings can be terminated where parties settle disputes amicably, aligning with Supreme Court precedents on victim autonomy in non-heinous offences.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Form-8 mutation notices under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Act are not final orders. Authorities must pass reasoned speaking orders after hearing objections, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. This judgment mandates procedural fairness in revenue mutations, impacting landowners and revenue authorities across the state.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that the welfare of a minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, dismissing the father’s appeal for custody while upholding visitation rights. The ruling underscores that parental convenience cannot supersede the child’s best interests, setting a precedent for future guardianship cases.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that police officers have no authority under Clause 20(a) of the AP Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 to seize vehicles carrying essential commodities like rice. The ruling sets aside arbitrary seizures, reinforces natural justice, and directs immediate release of confiscated goods, impacting transporters and law enforcement agencies under the Essential Commodities Act.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that revision petitions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are not maintainable for challenging discharge orders in SC/ST Atrocities Act cases. Instead, aggrieved parties must file an appeal under Section 14A of the Act, reinforcing the special statutory remedy over general criminal procedure.

Karnataka High Court rules that the pendency of an earlier suit does not automatically bar a subsequent suit if the reliefs sought are distinct and arise from separate causes of action. The court emphasized that res judicata principles must not stifle legitimate claims under Section 151 CPC, reinforcing judicial flexibility in civil procedure.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, strictly requires a minimum of 5 years of continuous service for gratuity eligibility, leaving no room for administrative discretion. The ruling sets aside gratuity orders favoring an employee with only 4 years and 9 months of service, reinforcing statutory compliance over equitable considerations for employers and employees alike.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition for regularisation of daily wage employees, ruling that exhaustion of alternative remedies-specifically, prior representation to the competent authority-is a prerequisite for invoking Article 226. The judgment reinforces that extraordinary remedies under writ jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of course without first pursuing statutory or administrative redressal.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that students enrolled in one-year Diploma in 2D Animation courses through Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University are entitled to state scholarships under existing SC/ST welfare resolutions, affirming that distance education does not disqualify beneficiaries. This sets a critical precedent for vocational and creative arts students in open learning systems seeking equitable access to government aid.

Karnataka High Court reinforces that landowners excluded from partial awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 if the award amount was not deposited. The ruling clarifies that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act operates as a safeguard, ensuring fair compensation even in cases of procedural lapses by authorities.

Karnataka High Court sets aside a ₹5,000 penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, ruling that manual compilation of voluminous data justifies delay where no mala fide or urgency is established. The judgment reinforces that penalties must consider administrative realities, not just statutory timelines.

Karnataka High Court grants parole to a life convict where the Life Convicts Release Committee's decision is pending, reinforcing judicial oversight over administrative delays in premature release cases. The ruling underscores the court's role in ensuring adherence to state guidelines under Article 226, even when statutory committees fail to act.

Karnataka High Court rules that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without a meaningful reading of its entirety. The judgment also clarifies that partition suits are not barred by limitation, and fraud discovery triggers a fresh cause of action, reinforcing procedural fairness in property disputes.