#Revisional Jurisdiction

Allahabad HC upheld a trial court's order allowing a second Section 216 CrPC application to add Section 307 IPC, ruling medical evidence of a firearm injury and the victim's statement sufficient prima facie material for pre-judgment charge alteration. The court declined Section 528 BNSS interference, affirming trial courts' discretion to alter charges on credible evidence.

Under Section 263 ITA, the Supreme Court held that the CIT’s revisional jurisdiction requires an order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and that circulars cannot override the statute, thus limiting authority and protecting assessees.

The Delhi High Court held that Section 17A PC Act’s prior sanction requirement does not apply to demands for illegal gratification, letting the charge framing stand. It clarifies that sanction is required only for acceptance, not demand, of bribes, guiding corruption prosecutions.

The NCDRC held that repossessing a vehicle during a pending appeal without notice to recover another vehicle's dues is an unfair trade practice. This protects consumers from coercive recovery and bars finance firms from seizing assets for unrelated debts.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a cheque bounce conviction because the complaint was filed before the statutory 15-day notice period expired, ruling that a premature complaint is jurisdictionally defective and legally non-existent. The decision reinforces that strict compliance with Section 138's procedural timeline is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a mere formality.

The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed that a written version under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 must be submitted within the statutory 30-day period, with only a discretionary 15-day extension permissible. Non-compliance led to dismissal of Union Bank of India's revision petition, highlighting strict deadline adherence for all parties.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed a Rs 4,000-per-month maintenance order for a divorced wife, holding that Section 125 CrPC guarantees support until she remarries, regardless of the husband’s financial-hardship pleas. This safeguards divorced women’s livelihood until they enter a new marriage.

Landlords cannot rely on a claimed bonafide requirement for eviction if the need is not genuine or if they later secure alternative premises or move abroad. The Delhi High Court set aside dismissal orders in three eviction cases, ruling that such subsequent events defeat the Section 25-B(8) defence. Tenants in similar disputes gain protection.

Supreme Court reaffirms limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, setting aside Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ruling clarifies the threshold for eviction on bona fide grounds, impacting landlords and tenants in rent-controlled jurisdictions.

Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be exercised to reappraise evidence. The ruling reinforces the high threshold for overturning concurrent judicial findings in rent control matters.

The ITAT Ahmedabad affirmed that the Principal Commissioner can invoke revisional powers under Section 263 even after assessment is complete, if a subsequent DVO report proves the original valuation was materially understated, leading to significant revenue loss. This sets a critical precedent for tax authorities to act on credible post-assessment evidence that exposes deliberate or negligent undervaluation of capital assets.

Bombay High Court rules that certified copies of orders under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act are presumed legally correct, dismissing a challenge to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision. The ruling reinforces the evidentiary weight of certified orders in property disputes, impacting co-owners and litigants relying on such documents.

Rajasthan High Court rules that an axe blow to the head constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence of intent to commit murder under BNS, justifying charge framing. The ruling clarifies that courts need not wait for trial to assess intent where the act itself demonstrates clear criminal purpose, impacting criminal procedure in violent offences.

Karnataka High Court upholds Rs. 10,00,000 compensation under the PWDV Act, ruling that a 'domestic relationship' need not be established solely by a marriage certificate. Admissions, digital evidence, and conduct can suffice, expanding protection for aggrieved women in non-formalized relationships.

Bombay High Court reinforces that the presence of minor girls in a brothel triggers an irrebuttable presumption of offence under Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The ruling limits the scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases involving heinous offences against minors, setting a strict precedent for human trafficking prosecutions.