Punjab and Haryana High Court judgments

Punjab and Haryana High Court rules that indefinite suspension of a government employee without issuing a charge-sheet under Rule 4(5)(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice. The court mandates a decision on reinstatement or extension within two weeks, setting a precedent for timely disciplinary proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, withdrawal of 50% of an arbitral award requires a bank guarantee as security. The court clarifies that unconditional release is impermissible, reinforcing creditor protection in execution proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that the welfare of a minor child prevails over a spouse's chronic illness when transferring matrimonial proceedings. The court directed consolidation of petitions and permitted virtual appearances to balance convenience, reinforcing that child custody considerations outweigh logistical hardships for litigants.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that quasi-judicial powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be sub-delegated by the District Magistrate to subordinate officers. Orders passed by unauthorized officers are void, affecting appellate proceedings under the Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that universities must furnish students with all disciplinary reports and expert evidence before imposing expulsion. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice, entitling students to a fair opportunity to respond and challenge allegations. This sets a precedent for procedural fairness in academic disciplinary actions.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that passport renewal can be denied under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, if the applicant is evading pending criminal proceedings in India. The court emphasized that police verification reports citing pending FIRs are decisive, reinforcing the state's authority to restrict travel rights to ensure trial compliance.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that special pay lawfully drawn by a retiring employee must be factored into pension calculations, reinforcing the principle of legitimate expectation in retiral benefits. The court directed payment of arrears with 12% interest, setting a precedent for public sector employees denied rightful pension components.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a sale deed cannot be registered under Section 77 of the Registration Act if the buyer fails to pay the balance consideration, as execution requires adherence to all contractual terms. This decision reinforces that registration is contingent on substantive performance, not merely formalities like signatures, impacting property transactions and contractual compliance.

Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules that insurers cannot repudiate life insurance claims based on pre-existing diseases unless proven within 48 months of policy issuance, as mandated by IRDAI. The ruling sets a critical precedent for consumer protection, shifting the burden of proof squarely onto insurers in material concealment disputes.

Punjab & Haryana HC reaffirmed that courts can quash FIRs in non-compoundable offences, including those under the SC/ST Act, if parties reach a genuine compromise. The ruling underscores that Section 528 BNSS empowers courts to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, even where statutory bars exist.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on limitation grounds, even if only some defendants seek it. The bar must be patently clear for rejection, reinforcing that limitation objections must apply uniformly to the entire plaint, not selectively.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that appellate courts must prioritize early hearings in partition suits when ongoing construction risks irreparable harm, reinforcing judicial oversight under Article 227 to prevent irreversible property damage. The decision underscores that procedural delays cannot override substantive justice in property disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. demands evidence stronger than mere prima facie grounds. Mere FIR mention or uncorroborated testimony is insufficient if investigation findings suggest innocence, reinforcing judicial discretion in protecting accused from arbitrary proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana HC affirms that minors threatened with forced marriage fall under 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act 2015, mandating Child Welfare Committee intervention. The ruling reinforces state duty to protect minors' liberty under Article 21, even without a criminal complaint.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that motor insurance coverage commences upon premium payment, even if the policy document reflects a later effective date. The ruling holds insurers liable for accidents occurring on the premium payment date, overturning the Tribunal’s exoneration of the insurer in a claim where the premium was received on the accident date.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that co-owners in exclusive possession cannot undertake construction on joint property during pending partition proceedings if it prejudices other co-owners' interests. The court affirmed that equitable restraint applies even without formal ouster, ensuring fair partition outcomes.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that for adverse possession claims under the Limitation Act, pleading the year of commencement is sufficient if possession is proven to be continuous, hostile, and known to the true owner. This simplifies evidence requirements for long-standing possession disputes, impacting property litigation strategy.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that minor typographical errors, such as an incorrect accident date in a claim petition, cannot defeat compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act if corroborated by FIR, medical reports, and police records. The court emphasized the Act's humanitarian intent, ensuring victims receive just compensation based on preponderance of evidence rather than procedural technicalities.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that banks cannot freeze accounts or impose liens based solely on automated cybercrime alerts without an FIR, court order, or verified suspicious transaction. The judgment reinforces that constitutional protections under Article 300A require due process before restricting property rights, impacting account holders and financial institutions.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a mere 'gair marusi' entry in revenue records, without evidence of actual possession or tenancy, cannot justify apportioning land acquisition compensation. The true owner is entitled to the full compensation amount, reinforcing that revenue records alone are insufficient to establish legal rights in land disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that inheritance confers immediate ownership rights, and a suit for possession is not barred by limitation unless ouster is proven. The court emphasized that co-owners retain their rights unless active exclusion is established, reinforcing the burden of proof on adverse possession claimants.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a third bail petition in a grave IPC and Arms Act case, ruling that prolonged custody alone does not justify release when charges are serious. The court directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months, failing which the accused may reapply for bail, reinforcing the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that the enhanced Rs. 5,00,000 no-fault compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to deaths occurring before the 2019 amendment, entitling claimants to the higher amount even if their claims were filed under Section 163-A. This decision aligns with the precedent in Ram Murti v. Punjab SEB, reinforcing retrospective application of beneficial provisions in motor accident compensation cases.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that a court decree merely acknowledging a pre-existing family settlement among relatives with a valid claim does not require registration under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. The ruling clarifies that such decrees cannot be invalidated on unpleaded grounds, reinforcing judicial recognition of informal family arrangements without formal registration.