High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De applied Order II Rule 2(3) and the doctrine of election, and set aside the transfer to the Commercial Division.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeeb K Panigrahi and Murahari Sri Raman set aside a Section 74 GST order and remitted it, with the proceeding to conclude in eight weeks.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused an interim injunction over Delhi Law House titles, holding a claim to a share of revenue is compensable in damages, not by restraint.
Justice Biswajit Palit found the FIR was registered on a misconception of facts and held that letting the proceeding continue would be an abuse of the process of the court.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed a father's second petition against his son's detention under the PIT NDPS Act.
Justice Sumeet Goel held that further detention was not warranted, and imposed eight conditions including a monthly affidavit that the accused has committed no fresh offence.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia dismissed a KGMU professor's four writ petitions and a contempt application, holding that grievances withheld from the charge sheet reply cannot be raised first in writ.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed an NIA Act appeal and ordered release, holding a proforma arrest memo is not compliance with Article 22.
Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy dismissed five land acquisition writ petitions, holding Section 33 corrects clerical errors and cannot be used to substitute a fresh valuation.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale refused relief under Section 482, holding that the planning authority had itself doubted the plan and that a civil remedy does not bar a criminal case.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Rahul Bharti dismissed an arbitration appeal, holding limitation goes to the admissibility of a claim rather than the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta quashed a university selection and ordered the petitioner's appointment letter to issue within three weeks.
A Division Bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao quashed six Tribunal orders and directed the Transport Commissioner to issue appointment orders within two months.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat rejected a civil revision but suspended his own judgment for four weeks so the tenant could approach the Supreme Court.
Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Rajesh Mazumdar set aside a life sentence where every witness spoke only of what the police had told them, and order immediate release.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad hold that the right to a speedy trial encompasses a speedy enquiry, and enforce a 2015 notification the State had stopped observing.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) holds that Section 90 of the Industrial Relations Code bites only where a dispute is already pending, and sets aside the Conciliation Officer's orders.
Justices Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ansul hold that where nine of twelve witnesses do not support the prosecution, an interested informant cannot establish the place of occurrence on his own.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy holds a writ petition neither maintainable nor entertainable, and points the parties to the Section 92 suit already pending over the same Constitution.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad holds that a supplier's liability under the contract is confined to defective packing or manufacturing defect, and that neither was ever found.
Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit holds that an accused may compel the statutory step under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, and that directing it is not a transfer of a criminal case.
Justice Siddharth Nandan finds two Division Bench rulings in conflict on whether a teacher must be heard before the Inspector approves a suspension, and keeps the orders in abeyance meanwhile.
Justice Madhu Jain sets aside a Special Judge's refusal and directs a written complaint against six CBI officers, holding that successive drafts and file notings supply the reasonable foundation Section 340 requires.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejects the workmen's case on functional integrality and Section 25-FFA, but extends 1999 voluntary retirement benefits to all 85 of them without adjustment.
