#Judicial Intervention

Bombay High Court rules that while State Land Acquisition Officers lack authority to alter Section 4 notification dates under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, High Courts can exercise Article 226 powers to retrospectively adjust dates to prevent injustice. The Court shifted the notification date to the writ petition filing date, ensuring fair compensation calculation for affected landowners.

Bombay High Court clarifies that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the referral court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to verifying the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues like limitation, abandonment, or merits of the dispute must be left to the arbitral tribunal, reinforcing minimal judicial intervention in arbitration referrals.

Bombay High Court rules that non-implementation of Government Resolution (GR) for restructuring crop loans of flood-affected farmers violates welfare benefits, risking NPA classification and CIBIL score damage. The Court mandates immediate compliance to protect farmers from irreversible financial harm.

Bombay High Court rules that arbitral awards must strictly adhere to contractual interest rate clauses under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration Act. The court set aside an award granting 18% compounded interest, remanding the dispute for fresh arbitration, reinforcing that arbitrators cannot override agreed terms even under judicial review.

The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A), judicial intervention is confined solely to verifying whether an arbitration agreement exists - not evaluating the validity, performance, or termination of the underlying contract. This clarifies that even disputed contract terminations cannot justify judicial scrutiny of merits, reinforcing the pro-arbitration stance of the 2015 Amendment and protecting parties from procedural delays.

Telangana High Court set aside a draft layout permit issued by HMDA, ruling that unauthorized construction and failure to consider the petitioner’s representation violated the HMDA Act and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A. The court directed HMDA to take action against illegal development, reinforcing strict adherence to approved layouts.

Madras High Court rules that orders passed by the Master in execution of arbitration awards under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act are not appealable, reinforcing the finality of arbitral awards and limiting judicial intervention to Section 37 remedies. This decision impacts commercial dispute resolution by barring appellate challenges to execution proceedings, ensuring faster enforcement of awards.

Calcutta High Court rules that an arbitration clause mandating mutual consent for arbitrator appointment fails the certainty requirement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment invalidates such clauses, reinforcing that arbitration agreements must demonstrate binding intent and enforceability without contingency.

MP High Court Gwalior reinforces the statutory mandate under Sections 10-B and 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing Labour Courts to conclude proceedings within three months. The ruling underscores that prolonged delays prejudice workmen’s right to livelihood and defeat the Act’s beneficial purpose, setting a binding precedent for expeditious adjudication.

Bombay High Court permits termination of pregnancy at 27 weeks for a 12-year-old victim, holding that psychological health and social reputation override statutory gestational limits under the MTP Act. The ruling sets a precedent for judicial discretion in cases involving minors, emphasizing the need to prevent irreparable mental harm and family stigma.

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench reaffirms that migrant students cannot be denied examination rights solely due to pending caste validity certificate verification. The ruling mandates universities to permit exam appearances subject to final petition outcome, balancing administrative compliance with educational access.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that adjacent landowners retain the right to claim compensation for easementary rights even after transferring ownership, if their remaining land suffers demonstrable adverse impact from highway acquisition. This clarifies that compensation is tied to functional impairment of retained property, not mere ownership status, significantly expanding protections for commercial landowners in infrastructure projects.

Allahabad High Court rules that re-recording of statements under Section 183 BNSS is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, not as a routine procedure.

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses review petition against Section 11 arbitrator appointment, affirming that no statutory remedy exists and judicial intervention is strictly limited under the Arbitration Act.

Andhra Pradesh High Court directs trial court to expedite pending maintenance case, prohibits casual adjournments and mandates progress reporting to ensure timely justice.