Justice Jobin Sebastian held that Section 94 of the BNSS cannot be used to compel an accused to produce a mobile phone said to hold incriminating material, because that would violate the protection against self-incrimination in Article 20(3).
Hearing one accused who had seen two witnesses in three years, Justice B. Pugalendhi widened the case to the State, looked at pendency, special courts and prosecutors, and gave directions to the Registrar General, the Government and the prosecution.
Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the mere possibility of crime cannot justify curbing hours the State allowed under its liquor rules, that a Section 79 order lasts at most fifteen days, and that the police may act against noise only under Section 77 or the Noise Pollution Rules.
Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi and Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the dismissal of a writ by a teacher at the Hindustan Aeronautics school in Sunabeda, holding that his express consent in 1995 to leave the aided regime ended any claim to Government pay scales, matching dearness allowance and retirement at 60.
Justice Mini Pushkarna suspended the sentence of a DSIIDC dealing clerk convicted in a CBI trap case, noting that no money was recovered from him, no witness spoke of a demand by him and he had stayed on bail through the trial.
A Division Bench held that refusing 2011 correspondence tendered after the other side had finished its evidence did not deny a fair hearing, and that approval of invoices did not prove approval of revised rates. It dismissed Viceroy Engineering appeal against an award rejecting all its counterclaims.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav relied on the accused's long custody, the lack of any prospect of trial ending soon, and a disputed role, in a gang-rivalry killing where the alleged gang leader is already on bail.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a Rent Controller's order granting leave to defend, because the landlord's own title documents, pleaded rent and disclosures left the existence of a tenancy open for evidence.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that only High Courts and the Supreme Court can fix such terms after V. Sriharan, but dismissed the writ petition because the High Court itself had confirmed the sentence in 2013 and the Supreme Court had dismissed his special leave petition.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no power to grant, or even direct, a no-objection for commercial use of a flat, and sent the owners to the co-operative court under Section 91.
A Division Bench upheld the murder conviction of a woman accused of setting her daughter-in-law on fire in a Delhi jhuggi in 2000, relying on two consistent dying declarations, but set aside the cruelty convictions of her and her son.
A Division Bench at Jabalpur set aside five single-judge orders that had quashed recovery of an ad hoc pay increase from ministerial staff of the Madhya Pradesh Police. It held that recovery stalled for years under court stays, that the employees were unjustly enriched, and that none had pleaded hardship.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal exclusion of comparables from a transfer pricing set, including a company whose merger produced super profits that would skew the mean. It found no substantial question of law on the remaining questions after the Supreme Court remand in SAP Labs.
A paper dealer lost its execution case because the buyer was not a member of the Paper Merchants Association. The Delhi High Court held that non-membership does not make the Association Executive Committee appointment of a sole arbitrator unilateral under Section 12(5), and sent the case back to the executing court.
Justice Tejas Karia granted an interim injunction to Jindal Composite Tubes, holding that JINDAL remains the dominant feature of GROJINDAL, that a surname defence fails because JINDAL is not the defendant name, and that Delhi has jurisdiction because the plaintiffs carry on business there.
Twenty-eight years after a woman was set on fire on Bhai Dooj, a Delhi High Court bench upheld murder convictions of her husband, a Delhi Police ASI, his mother and a sister-in-law on the strength of her dying declaration, and acquitted three women of cruelty on the benefit of doubt.
Justice Amit Borkar held that a missing signature does not mean there is no arbitration agreement, because the cardholder terms drawn up by the bank treat use of the card as acceptance. He appointed a sole arbitrator in four card-default disputes and left every question of proof to the tribunal.
Justice Anish Dayal applied the multiplier method to nursing, attendants, physiotherapy and future treatment, rejected a three-year-old income finding, and refused loss of consortium because the man is alive.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the three-year sentence of a branch postmaster for criminal breach of trust over deposits never credited to depositors, but acquitted him of cheating, holding that the two offences cannot stand together on the same facts.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi dismissed 44 writ petitions by the Bhakra Beas Management Board against labour court awards of compensation to work-charged workmen who were not offered re-employment after retrenchment.
Justice Anish Dayal enhanced compensation for a 21-year-old left in a vegetative state, applying a multiplier of 18 to nursing, attendant, physiotherapy and future medical costs, while rejecting the insurer plea to cut income and non-pecuniary heads.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary upheld a single judge who set aside the part of an arbitral award letting DDA keep interest on a fixed deposit made from an encashed bank guarantee the arbitrator held DDA had no right to invoke.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the trial court prima facie findings on four passages of Yes Man, but held that a pending-trial ban on the entire book tilts the balance against free speech, and moulded the injunction to cover only those passages.
Justice Tejas Karia held that Doosra prima facie used the recognition and commercial appeal of Sourav Ganguly to draw audiences, yet declined to stop screenings of a film already released, ordering a disclaimer in English and Hindi and an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore.
