High Courts judgments

Karnataka High Court holds that an arbitral tribunal's failure to consider RA Bills showing 18% GST inclusion in non-tendered works (valued at ₹9.65 crores) constitutes patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The ruling reinforces that tribunals must account for tax implications in contract disputes, impacting construction and commercial arbitration.

Karnataka High Court rules that bail granted in a case cannot be cancelled merely because the accused is subsequently arrested in another FIR. The Court emphasized judicial consistency, holding that a coordinate bench's bail order in the new case must be respected unless fresh, compelling grounds emerge.

Bombay High Court rules that an allottee’s right to interest under RERA for delayed possession is absolute and cannot be waived by conduct, silence, or acceptance of revised timelines. The judgment clarifies that RERA’s consumer protection provisions prevail over contractual defenses under the Indian Contract Act, ensuring homebuyers are not deprived of statutory remedies.

Karnataka High Court rules that once a defendant admits receipt of a refundable security deposit and issues a repayment cheque, the burden shifts to them to prove lawful retention. Unsubstantiated claims of advance payment without documentary evidence fail to discharge this burden, reinforcing the evidentiary standard under the Evidence Act in commercial disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a hereditary claim to mutawalli succession under the Waqf Act, 1995, must be substantiated by a statutory enquiry report, not just familial ties. The decision reinforces that Waqf Board determinations under Section 61 prevail over unproven assertions, impacting succession disputes in religious endowments.

Bombay High Court affirms that the 'last seen' theory, combined with DNA evidence, recovery of victim’s belongings, and medical testimony, constitutes a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The ruling underscores that concurrent sentences for Sections 302 and 201 IPC are permissible when the offences are interlinked.

Bombay High Court clarifies that quorum for cooperative society resolutions under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules 2014 must be calculated on the basis of functional members present, not total seats or vacant positions. Election officers cannot unilaterally invalidate internal resolutions without a court order, reinforcing procedural fairness for managing committees.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that employees of financially autonomous bodies like WALMI are entitled to ACPS benefits when the state bears their salary costs, rejecting arbitrary denial of promotions. This sets a critical precedent for thousands of non-gazetted staff in state-funded autonomous institutions who were previously excluded from career progression despite performing equivalent duties.

The Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail to an accused in a contraband case, holding that once the contraband is seized and no further recovery is anticipated, custodial interrogation serves no investigative purpose - especially when the legal applicability of Section 123 BNS is pending before the Supreme Court. This sets a critical precedent for low-value contraband cases where pre-arrest liberty must be preserved unless investigation demands detention.

Bombay High Court rules that compensation for passengers under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be reduced due to the driver’s contributory negligence. It also affirms a notional income of Rs.5,000/month for student claimants with permanent disabilities, ensuring fair compensation regardless of earning status.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be arrested in a BNS case until the court takes cognizance of the police report, mandating completion of investigation within 60 days. This sets a critical pre-trial procedural safeguard for individuals facing non-bailable offenses under the new criminal code, ensuring due process before custodial action.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that no coercive action-such as dispossession-may be taken against a party while a stay application under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code remains undecided, reinforcing the binding precedent from Daya Shankar v. State of U.P. This protects property rights and ensures procedural fairness for landowners and developers awaiting appellate relief.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that agricultural loan recovery cannot proceed through forced land auction when the borrower is a small farmer willing to repay in installments, affirming that livelihood protection overrides rigid asset recovery. This sets a critical precedent for banks and recovery officers to apply proportionality and humane discretion under SARFAESI proceedings, especially when the debtor’s primary asset is their means of subsistence.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that private medical universities exercising public functions are subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when imposing disciplinary suspensions without any right to appeal. This sets a critical precedent for student rights in private educational institutions, affirming that natural justice requires procedural fairness even outside direct state control.

The Allahabad High Court has held that a broken promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the time of consent, cannot retroactively transform consensual sexual relations into rape under Section 376 IPC. This ruling protects individuals from weaponizing criminal law in broken romantic relationships and reinforces that consent must be evaluated at the time of the act, not redefined by later disappointment.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a cooperative society loses its voting rights in bank elections if it was in default on the statutory eligibility cut-off date, even if dues are paid afterward. This clarifies that statutory disqualification under Section 27(10) is locked in at the time of nomination, not remedied retroactively - impacting how societies manage financial compliance ahead of elections.

The Bombay High Court has ordered a respondent in arbitration to disclose all movable, immovable, bank, and demat assets, and appointed a Court Receiver to take symbolic possession of unattached properties. This sets a new benchmark for asset preservation, ensuring claimants aren't left remedy-less when respondents conceal or dissipate assets before arbitration concludes.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that when medical evidence establishes an individual as a major, it supersedes conflicting documentary proof in habeas corpus proceedings, safeguarding personal liberty under Article 21. This reinforces that consent and bodily autonomy prevail over bureaucratic records in cases involving young adults, setting a critical precedent for reproductive and relational freedom.

The Bombay High Court has held that denying a petitioner a translated copy of the vigilance report and refusing a personal hearing before invalidating a Scheduled Tribe certificate violates the foundational principles of natural justice. This ruling reinforces that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in caste verification, especially when state action impacts employment rights and affirmative action benefits after decades of service.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Bar Council of India cannot withhold renewal of LL.B. course approvals merely because a college disputes late fees, mandating that mandatory fees be processed independently. This protects thousands of law students from academic disruption and affirms that regulatory bodies must separate procedural penalties from core educational rights under natural justice.

The Bombay High Court holds that mere physical contact like hand-holding, absent any caste-based abuse or slur, cannot trigger the non-bailable provisions of the SC/ST Act. This clarifies that the Act’s stringent bail restrictions apply only to acts of humiliation or degradation rooted in caste identity, not to personal or romantic conduct devoid of discriminatory intent - protecting accused persons from automatic pre-trial detention in ambiguous cases.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that filing a writ petition to obstruct ongoing personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC, after a delay of nearly ten years, is an abuse of process. The judgment reinforces that statutory adjudication under the IBC must prevail over belated public law challenges, setting a critical precedent for creditors and guarantors facing delayed constitutional challenges to insolvency triggers.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that denying character certificates solely due to pending petty criminal cases-especially familial disputes-is an arbitrary infringement of the right to livelihood and due process. Authorities must issue certificates in prescribed format, disclosing only case details, not imposing blanket rejections that cripple employment and travel rights.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that litigants cannot be penalized with no-cross orders or closure of evidence due to their advocate’s absence, provided the non-appearance was not willful. This reinforces the right to be heard and prevents procedural injustice against clients who acted in good faith, setting a vital precedent for fair trial standards in civil litigation.