#Jurisdictional Limits

The Karnataka High Court ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, unless there is gross illegality or injustice. This clarifies the limits of criminal court interference in civil domestic violence remedies, affecting petitioners seeking to stall DV cases.

ITAT Jaipur quashes Section 153C assessment for AY 2014-15, ruling seized agreement dated 2012 irrelevant as it pertained to a prior year. The ruling clarifies jurisdictional limits on incriminating material under Section 153C, impacting future assessments based on third-party searches.

Allahabad High Court clarifies that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, only empowers authorities to invalidate property transfers made under fraudulent conditions under Section 23. All other title disputes must be resolved through civil courts, restricting the Act's scope to welfare-related fraud, not general property rights.

Bombay High Court quashes a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order for exceeding the scope of a remand, emphasizing that subordinate authorities must confine their inquiry strictly to the issue directed by the appellate order. The ruling reinforces jurisdictional limits under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, and Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, impacting land dispute resolutions and administrative law proceedings.

Bombay High Court holds that SARFAESI Act proceedings cannot be initiated against borrowers classified as MSMEs under the MSME Development Act, 2006. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedents limiting secured creditors' recovery avenues, impacting banks' enforcement strategies for MSME loans.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that Collectors have no authority to override a secured creditor’s possession action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing that borrowers’ only recourse lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. This clarifies a key jurisdictional boundary, preventing administrative interference in bank-led recovery processes and strengthening creditor autonomy under the Act.

ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that additions beyond the recorded reasons for reopening are invalid. The tribunal relied on the precedent that jurisdictional validity collapses if the foundational reason for reassessment fails, reinforcing strict adherence to jurisdictional limits in tax proceedings.

ITAT Delhi rules that assessments under Section 153C for assessment years beyond 10 years from the search date are invalid unless the undisclosed income exceeds Rs 50 lakhs for years 7-10. The decision reinforces jurisdictional limits on tax authorities, impacting search-and-seizure assessments.

Delhi High Court rules that arbitrators lack jurisdiction to award interest or compensation on claims explicitly withdrawn by parties, even if framed as indirect relief. The decision reinforces the finality of claim withdrawal under arbitration agreements, impacting commercial dispute resolution strategies.

Madras High Court rules that customs authorities cannot penalize brokers for MEIS misclassification if DGFT has issued and not revoked the scrips, reinforcing strict jurisdictional boundaries under foreign trade law. The ruling shields customs brokers from liability absent explicit DGFT action, impacting enforcement under the MEIS scheme.

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the State Human Rights Commission lacks the power to direct salary deductions from public servants to enforce compensation orders, affirming that Section 18 of the PHRA only empowers it to make recommendations, not binding financial orders. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional boundary, protecting public servants from unilateral financial penalties imposed without statutory authority.

Chhattisgarh High Court reinforces that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, only designated Medical Boards-not revenue officers-have the authority to assess or invalidate disability certificates. Retrospective invalidation based on subsequent medical tests violates natural justice and jurisdictional limits, protecting persons with disabilities from arbitrary administrative actions.

Gauhati HC ruled that probate courts cannot adjudicate title disputes and must issue mandatory notice to all interested parties, including remote heirs, before granting probate. The court set aside a probate granted without notice to appellants, remanding the matter for fresh hearing under principles of natural justice. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in succession disputes under the Indian Succession Act.

The Bombay High Court has held that the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act lacks the statutory power to direct criminal prosecution, reinforcing that its role is confined to ordering information disclosure and imposing penalties under Section 20. This ruling protects public authorities from overreach by appellate bodies and clarifies the boundaries between administrative accountability and criminal liability under the Act.

Bombay High Court holds that Labour Courts cannot implead new employers beyond the terms of reference under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.