Topic
Appellate jurisdiction in Indian law refers to the authority of higher courts to review and modify decisions made by lower courts in civil and criminal matters.
The NCLAT ruled that orders dismissing contempt petitions are not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the provision only permits appeals against orders punishing for contempt. This bars aggrieved parties from challenging dismissal of contempt proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot adjudicate merits when the Regulatory Authority dismissed a complaint on maintainability grounds without a merits hearing. Doing so would deprive parties of their statutory right to first-instance adjudication and a subsequent appeal. The Tribunal must remand the matter to the Authority for fresh merits determination.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC cannot be limited to selected questions; the appellate court must adjudicate every point contested in the lower decree. This ensures comprehensive review and prevents piecemeal litigation in property disputes. Parties to first appeals must now raise all grievances at the appellate stage.
A Division Bench may not set aside a trial judge’s grant of an interim injunction unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Supreme Court said appellate courts can intervene only on a ground of abuse of discretion, leaving the interim relief intact.
The Calcutta High Court held that clear admissions of title and unchallenged tax receipts justify a judgment on admission, yet because the trial court did not examine the merits, the case must be remanded for a fresh trial. This clarifies that judgment on admission does not replace a full merits assessment in partition disputes, impacting parties relying on admitted title.
An appellate bench cannot replace a trial judge’s discretionary decision on an Order 39 application unless the lower order is perverse, preserving the trial court’s authority in specific relief matters. This limits higher courts from rewriting factual findings, affecting parties seeking interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act.
Supreme Court rules that even erroneous fact-based orders bind parties under res judicata unless jurisdictional defects exist. Clarifies impleadment of transferees pendente lite under CPC Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10, impacting property dispute litigants.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside an appellate order restraining construction on joint land, ruling that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to establish perversity in the trial court's findings. The ruling clarifies the limits of appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC in property disputes involving co-sharers.
Bombay HC quashes Sessions Court order denying evidence recording of a mentally ill accused under Section 391 CrPC. The ruling clarifies that appellate courts must consider medical evidence of mental illness when evaluating appeals, ensuring fair trial standards for vulnerable accused.
Bombay High Court reinforces that appellate courts cannot arbitrarily exceed the 20% compensation deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without recording specific reasons. The ruling mandates judicial accountability in cheque bounce appeals, ensuring fairness for appellants facing higher financial burdens.
Bombay High Court rules that the 2022 amendment to Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which bars appeals for awards below Rs. 1 lakh, applies to pending appeals filed before the amendment. The decision impacts insurers and claimants by dismissing appeals involving smaller compensation amounts, even if filed prior to the amendment.
Allahabad High Court extends probation under the Probation of Offenders Act to appellants despite a 40-year pendency, emphasizing reformative justice over punitive imprisonment. The ruling sets aside imprisonment while upholding convictions under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC, reinforcing judicial discretion in sentencing even in delayed appeals.
Kerala High Court sets aside conviction under NDPS Act where prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A's inventory tendering requirements, emphasizing procedural safeguards for contraband evidence. The ruling mandates fresh evidence, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory procedures in drug offence trials.
Bombay High Court rules that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must account for a 25% deduction for adjacent land influence, alongside a 10% annual hike in market value. The court also clarifies that interest on enhanced compensation accrues from the final award date, not the Section 4 notification, impacting landowners and state authorities in acquisition disputes.
The Bombay High Court clarifies that procedural non-compliance in trying a criminal case and its counter case simultaneously does not invalidate proceedings unless the accused demonstrates actual prejudice. Section 465 CrPC operates as a curative provision, shielding convictions from technical defects when substantive justice is intact - a critical safeguard for prosecutors and trial courts navigating complex familial disputes.