#writ jurisdiction

Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Rent Control Tribunal's refusal to condone delay in filing appeal, holding apprehension of arrest does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act when party had ample opportunity to participate.

The Madras HC ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot challenge an MSMED Council award under Section 18 after a failed Section 34 petition, as Section 37 appeal is the exclusive remedy. The court barred the party from approbating and reprobating on the award's nature.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Competent Authority's appointment under Section 2(7A) of the Railways Act, 1989, deeming it valid despite a later acquisition notification. It found no prejudice in the hearing process and no illegality in compensation, impacting landowners of the Nathdwara rail line.

The Allahabad HC held a writ under Article 226 for admitted dues maintainable despite state's plea, directing payment of Rs 18,79,197 at 6% interest within three months and affirming that financial constraints cannot override a settled legal obligation.

The Delhi High Court held a writ petition maintainable against an ARC for alleged fraud in security-interest creation, despite SARFAESI’s remedy. It directed exclusion of the petitioner’s one-third share from the e-auction.

The Calcutta High Court directed police to ensure senior citizens’ entry into their self-acquired property within three days’ notice, providing assistance if obstructed, while preserving any ongoing matrimonial proceedings.

The Court held that withdrawing a revision as 'not pressed' after an adverse order triggers CPC Order XXIII Rule 1’s rule of public policy, barring a fresh writ on the same cause. This stops litigants from evading adverse orders by abandoning revision.

Calcutta HC held that a student with 62.61% attendance is ineligible for condonation under university rules requiring a 65% threshold for B.Com-LLB courses. The judgment upholds the attendance requirement, orders publication of the withheld results, and affects students seeking condonation for insufficient attendance.

The Orissa HC held that Articles 226/227 writs lie against orders under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, overruling the second-appeal bar. This preserves the court’s supervisory jurisdiction and restores a remedy for parties challenging interim arbitration orders.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that employees of merged cooperative societies retain seniority from the merger date under Section 149(2-A) of the TNCS Act, 1983, and that a writ petition challenging show-cause notices is premature when a revision remedy exists. The decision safeguards seniority rights in cooperative mergers and curbs premature writ filings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a writ court’s direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expedite SARFAESI proceedings, ruling that such a directive oversteps jurisdiction when borrowers retain the statutory remedy under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to fast-track recovery actions, preserving the borrower’s right to challenge dues before the DRT or appellate tribunal.

Directors of a Delhi-based electronics trading firm cannot bypass the CGST appellate remedy by alleging defective notice service and denial of personal hearing; the Delhi HC held such factual disputes fall outside Article 226 jurisdiction, dismissing challenges to a Rs. 27.11 crore penalty under Section 122(1A) CGST Act.

The Uttarakhand HC directed the Kashipur SHO to assess threats and provide police protection to an interfaith couple. It held that the state must protect couples facing familial threats, citing the Lata Singh precedent.

The court ruled that a contractual forum-selection clause cannot exclude the High Court's Article 226 writ jurisdiction, and that blacklisting a contractor as a 'Poor Performer' requires a show-cause notice specifying the exact grounds and proposed penalty, not merely an automatic consequence of contract termination. The two-year debarment order was set aside for violating natural justice.

A senior advocate’s claim for unpaid fees against the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted, with the Delhi High Court ordering payment of Rs 78.65 million plus 24% per annum interest. The bench clarified that a writ under Article 226 can be entertained even when the underlying facts are contested, widening the avenue for fee recovery from governments. The decision benefits senior advocates and other professionals seeking redress for outstanding fees from public authorities.