#Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a Section 319 CrPC application to summon additional accused is permissible only when the trial record contains strong, cogent evidence. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition where the allegation was uncorroborated, tightening the test for summoning extra accused.

Punjab & Haryana HC grants bail to a petitioner in a land fraud case, holding that bonafide purchase via bank transfer, absence of criminal antecedents, and prolonged pre-trial detention without witness examination justify release. The ruling reinforces that bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of allegations if the accused’s conduct and evidence of legitimacy are established.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ruling that a ten-year delay in reporting and hospitalization during the alleged crime fatally weaken the prosecution’s case, even in grave offenses. The judgment underscores that procedural lapses can override the presumption of guilt in rape cases, reinforcing natural justice safeguards.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that courts must accept a common surety bond for indigent accused facing multiple unrelated criminal cases, holding that bail conditions cannot become tools of incarceration due to financial inability. The judgment reinforces Article 21 protections and prevents poverty from denying bail rights.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a wife’s maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must ensure a dignified life aligned with the marital standard, rejecting unsubstantiated claims of her boutique income. This sets a critical precedent: financial independence assertions without verified evidence cannot override the statutory mandate to preserve post-marital dignity, directly impacting how lower courts assess maintenance in contested cases.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a state electricity utility’s Managing Director cannot appoint an arbitrator under a contractual clause when the dispute involves the utility’s own contractual obligations, as this creates an inherent conflict of interest under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. This ruling reinforces the independence requirement for arbitrator appointments in public utility contracts and protects parties from biased appointment mechanisms.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that adults in live-in relationships are entitled to police protection under Article 21 solely by virtue of their voluntary cohabitation, irrespective of marital status. This affirms that the right to life and liberty includes the freedom to choose intimate partnerships without state-imposed formalities, directly shielding cohabiting adults from familial harassment and state inaction.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that cutting off electricity to vulnerable residents over a private property dispute constitutes a violation of the right to life under Article 21. It ordered immediate temporary power restoration without demanding ownership documents, setting a precedent that basic utilities cannot be weaponized in civil or familial conflicts.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that consensual live-in relationships between major adults-even if one partner is married-are entitled to state protection under Article 21. The ruling mandates police intervention to safeguard couples from familial threats, irrespective of societal or legal marital status, reinforcing the primacy of individual liberty over moral or familial objections.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the real dispute test under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC overrides procedural delays when amending a plaint to include inherited property omitted by accident, ensuring complete adjudication and preventing multiplicity of suits. This empowers plaintiffs to correct genuine oversights without forfeiting substantive rights, provided costs are imposed to deter frivolous amendments.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a 3-month jail term on a judgment debtor who sold land released under a court-approved settlement and refused to deposit the sale proceeds, holding that such conduct constitutes wilful contempt. This ruling reinforces that post-settlement compliance is legally binding and breaches will be treated as direct defiance of judicial authority, affecting all parties bound by court-mediated compromises.

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses a writ petition filed solely by Delhi-based advocates, enforcing Rule 3-A that mandates local co-counsel for non-local advocates. The court imposed ₹50,000 costs for violating procedural compliance, reinforcing strict adherence to advocate practice rules under the Advocates Act 1961.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that eviction applications under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must be filed exclusively before the Maintenance Tribunal (SDM), invalidating orders passed by the District Magistrate. The ruling reinforces the statutory mandate, ensuring senior citizens' rights are adjudicated by the designated authority, not appellate bodies.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that employees with contract service before 01.01.2004 qualify for the Old Pension Scheme, even if regularized later. The ruling bars administrative attempts to apply the New Contributory Pension Scheme based on the regularization date, ensuring pension benefits align with the original appointment terms.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that major individuals in live-in relationships are protected under Article 21 regardless of existing marital status, affirming that personal choice in companionship is integral to the right to life and liberty. This extends critical safeguards to individuals facing familial coercion, setting a precedent for police protection in non-marital but consensual cohabitation cases.