High Courts judgments

The Punjab & Haryana HC held that SBI’s fraud classification complied with natural justice after a show cause notice, forensic audit report and reply were considered, clarifying RBI Directions on fraud reporting, affecting lenders and directors.

The Bombay High Court set aside the allotment of flats to Jet Speed Developers' directors by Le Chateau Co-operative Housing Society, declaring it illegal. It directed the society to allot those flats to the member-petitioners within six weeks after they pay construction costs.

The MPHC held that a legal representative substituted under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC cannot be ordered to pay compensation based on a contested will without civil court adjudication. It upheld the MACT’s ₹2,90,000 award as just and reasonable.

Delhi HC upheld conspiracy and cheating charges under Sections 120B/420 IPC on circumstantial evidence, quashed forgery charges for lack of proof, and held circumstantial evidence suffices to frame conspiracy charges at charge stage in economic offences.

Delhi HC struck down trial court's prior permission condition for foreign travel, holding it cannot stand without bail, cognizance or summons; instead, two weeks' prior intimation suffices. This shields Article 21 travel rights for those not yet arrested or summoned.

Gujarat HC quashed FIR against POA holders, ruling vague allegations lacking specific criminal intent amount to abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC. It shields parties in property deals from baseless prosecutions and stresses need for concrete allegations.

The Court held that admissions of tenancy and rent payment in a written statement sustain a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, removing the need for separate tenancy proof, and that an eviction suit itself is a valid notice to quit, simplifying landlord recovery.

The Gujarat HC held that post-warranty defects cannot ground criminal cheating or breach of trust charges, quashing the FIR as an abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC to shield businesses from mala fide complaints in civil disputes.

The Uttarakhand HC held that adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to Article 21 protection and must register under Section 381(1) of the Uttarakhand UCC, 2024, while police assess threats and provide protection.

The Uttarakhand HC held that detention without dual expert certification under Section 89 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is unlawful and ordered petitioner’s release. It also clarified that addiction alone is not mental illness under the Act.

The Uttarakhand High Court held that advance notice under BNSS Section 35(3) is required before police can demand a person’s personal presence during an investigation. This protects individuals from coercion and ensures procedural fairness, especially for those with health issues.

Calcutta HC quashed garnishee orders against SBI, holding bank cannot be deemed a defaulter under ESI Act if the customer’s account is inoperative and zero-balance, shielding banks from ESI liability, curbing recovery officer’s power to attach funds.

The Calcutta HC ruled that school authorities must weigh all evidence under the preponderance of probabilities standard and cannot dismiss teaching staff appointments based solely on a 1988 inspection report. The ruling protects employees appointed between 1995-97 seeking regularization of their service.

Paying part of the land conversion premium and then delaying challenge for eight years estops petitioner by acquiescence, the Gujarat HC held, dismissing the Rs.15 lakh refund claim and barring later challenges to conversion orders under land revenue law.

The Calcutta HC held that res judicata does not bar a later Section 65B affidavit for distinct documents, allowing supplementary electronic evidence. This aids litigants in insurance claims by allowing extra digital records without procedural bar.

Unchallenged WhatsApp messages alone can prove mental cruelty under HMA Sec 13(1)(i-a), the Chhattisgarh HC ruled, overturning the Family Court’s denial of divorce. The decision confirms that uncontested electronic evidence suffices for matrimonial relief, impacting spouses seeking divorce on cruelty grounds.

The Bombay HC granted an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, restraining non-signatory associate Udayak Agro from ‘SURE’ water and confidential information, applying Section 9 to indirect breaches and setting a 4-week disclosure deadline.

The Delhi HC held that Section 9 interim measures continue until the arbitral tribunal is constituted, after which the matter shifts to Section 17 and the tribunal may modify or vacate them, clarifying shift of interim relief from courts to tribunals.

The Bombay HC held that a promoter may terminate an allotment for non-payment of stamp duty under RERA, setting aside Maha RERA and Appellate Tribunal orders. It directed refund of Rs.12.3 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR+2% from July 2016, affirming that payment of statutory charges is a condition precedent to the allottee's rights.

The Delhi HC held that an arbitral award lacking proper stamp duty must be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but granted the decree holder liberty to withdraw the enforcement petition and re-file after paying the deficient stamp duty and any penalty. This clarifies that stamp deficiency is a curable defect, affecting parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards in Delhi.

Duty free shops cannot claim automatic exemption from regulatory laws merely operating beyond the customs barrier, Bombay High Court held. It affirmed that drugs and cosmetics remain under regulatory control despite customs barrier fiscal exemptions.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a delay in the declarant’s death, caused by medical complications, does not render a dying declaration inadmissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. This ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of such statements in murder prosecutions and guides lower courts on admitting delayed dying declarations.

Calcutta HC held that a pending title suit challenging the lease deed underlying an arbitral eviction award does not warrant a stay of execution under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC. Execution may proceed despite the title suit, affecting debtors seeking to halt eviction.

Calcutta HC vacated the ex parte order against influencers who posted heavy-metal test results of an Ayurvedic product. The decision sets a high bar for interim injunctions in defamation, shielding critics who test products for safety.