Topic
The Meghalaya High Court is the principal judicial authority for the state of Meghalaya, exercising original and appellate jurisdiction under the Indian Constitution and relevant statutes.
The Meghalaya High Court held that a Service Tax assessment issued after an 8.5-year delay is ultra vires, as Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 mandates a strict limitation period. Tax authorities must complete assessments within the prescribed timeline, protecting assessee rights.
The Meghalaya High Court ruled that a POCSO FIR may be quashed where the parties are in a consensual marriage and the alleged victim has given informed consent, invoking Section 528 CrPC’s discretionary power. The decision narrows POCSO’s reach in adolescent marriages and guides prosecutors on when FIRs can be dismissed.
Meghalaya High Court rules that withholding undisputed contractual payments violates natural justice, directing release of Rs. 17.79 lakhs while disputed Rs. 7.89 lakhs undergoes independent assessment. The ruling sets a precedent for equitable relief in public works contracts, ensuring contractors receive undisputed dues without procedural delays.
Meghalaya High Court rules that threats extending beyond a legal notice prima facie disclose an offence under Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, distinguishing Manik Taneja. The judgment clarifies that mere legal notices may not suffice, but overt intimidation-including video evidence-justifies FIR continuation, reinforcing the Bhajan Lal quashing thresholds for criminal intimidation cases.
Meghalaya High Court quashed an FIR under IPC Sections 324, 367, and 506 after the complainant consented to settlement, holding that simple injuries and lack of public interest warrant closure under Section 482 CrPC. The ruling reinforces that compoundable offences with mutual settlement do not merit continued prosecution.
Meghalaya High Court rules that disputed alibi claims cannot be grounds for denying anticipatory bail at the pre-arrest stage. The court emphasized that societal standing and cooperation with investigation outweigh the gravity of the offense, reinforcing procedural fairness in bail jurisprudence.
Meghalaya High Court quashes FIR under IPC Sections 307 and 326, holding that mutual settlement between parties justifies quashing under Section 482 CrPC for non-grave offences. The court imposed ₹25,000 costs, reinforcing that compromise can override prosecution where public interest is unaffected.
Meghalaya High Court clarifies that compassionate appointment under government schemes requires proof of acute financial distress at the time of application, not subsequent circumstances.