High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that documents lying in a plaintiff own godown throughout are not subsequently discovered documents under Sudhir Kumar, that a company cannot step outside Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC by deferring a search of its own records, and that the Diwali cleaning story was untrue and illogical when the first page of the same sales acc
A division bench at Srinagar held that the Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources Act, 2010, to the extent it levies water usage charges on hydro projects, imposes a tax on generation that the erstwhile State legislature had no competence to levy, struck it down to that extent and quashed demand notices against thirteen independent power producers.
A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain partly allowed MMTC Ltd appeal against an ICA majority award in favour of Australian exporter Aust Grain, severing 9 per cent interest on a USD 271,950 performance guarantee that the contract itself said would carry no interest, while rejecting every other objection, including that the dissen
A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava upheld the Ranchi Family Court, holding that a husband who admitted he stopped paying rent on the flat where his wife and two daughters lived had proved neither cruelty nor desertion under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad quashed a governing body resolution of the Government Bilasa Girls Post Graduate College that refused to correct the records of a graduate whose marriage had been annulled, holding under Jigya Yadav that an autonomous college cannot treat the absence of a rule as a prohibition when a Family Court decree, a gazette notificatio
Justice Pankaj Bhatia held at Lucknow that keeping Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya teachers for more than 15 years on 11-month-29-day contracts at an honorarium below semi-skilled wages violates Articles 14 and 23, directed the State to sanction posts and frame service conditions within four months, and ordered Rs 17,000 a month to every KGBV teacher in the
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya reversed a Begusarai probate grant for a 1994 will by which an elderly childless widow left her entire estate to two nieces. Nine days before the will she had signed a police complaint that her signature and mark had been taken on blank papers at a registry office. The will bore only thumb impressions at the top of each page, eve
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a second appeal pending since 2008 by purchasers who bought part of a Una plot from the vendor on the very day a specific performance suit was filed against her. Reading the High Court Rules on the court petition box, the judge held the plaint was presented by 10.15 am, so both sales were pendente lite, Section 19(b) of the
A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma dismissed the State appeal against the 2018 acquittal of three men stopped in a Mahindra Xylo at Dohri Diwar, Solan. Both independent witnesses denied seeing the recovery, the police officers contradicted each other on where the secret information was received and where the bag was ope
Justice Sushil Kukreja refused to reject a Rs 6.36 crore mortgage suit by a real estate company, holding that a one-off loan with no mercantile document, made by a company that is not a banker, trader or financier, falls outside Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act even if it carries interest and funded a housing project.
Justice S.V. Pinto dismissed the State appeal against the acquittal of two men accused of forcing a young woman to drink poison in a maize field in April 2014, finding material omissions in her complaint, no eyewitness to the act, a hospital history naming unknown persons, and an aluminium bottle that the police seized but never had analysed.
On remand from the Supreme Court, Justice Samit Gopal dismissed the appeals of the brother of a petrol pump employee who died after a glass door was smashed into his neck, holding that the Special Judge had granted bail on detailed orders after two prosecution witnesses were examined and that nothing showed misuse of liberty, tampering or non-cooperation.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed the Raipur Municipal Corporation petition under Article 227, holding that a Commercial Court can execute an arbitral award in a commercial dispute of specified value even if no Section 34 challenge was ever pending before it, and that a municipal body enjoys no blanket immunity from execution merely because its funds
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt at Indore held that the Sub Divisional Officer misread a High Court direction to verify documents and instead opened a fresh Section 250 proceeding for occupants who were never found on the land at demarcation, dismissed five writ petitions by those occupants as an abuse of process, and told the revenue authorities to hand over the 0
Justice T.M. Nadaf at the Dharwad Bench quashed the Town Municipal Council auction notification of 6 October 2026 so far as 11 petitioners shops are concerned, holding that a municipality cannot sidestep the Public Premises Act by auctioning premises still occupied by its old licensees. The shopkeepers must clear their rent within two weeks or lose the order
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside a ten-year-old conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, finding that the complainant had dealt only with another clerk, that the ACB told him whom to name in the complaint, and that an unclear tape recording with no voice identification and no Section 65-B certificate could not prove demand.
A Division Bench of Justice D. K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did weigh the Devanahalli alternative, that his Section 5A report binds nobody, and that a Section 6 declaration needs neither recited reasons nor a separate prior order. The Naganathapura landowners lose the 2025 quashing.
A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain held that a go-ahead for mass production of stubs and templates was not a waiver of prototype inspection for transmission towers, that the award contradicted itself on when the 10 per cent advance fell due, and that the scrap-sale finding ignored the supplier having called the same goods stan
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy quashed the 2019 order by which the bank rejected the claim of its temporary drivers, sweepers, messengers and IT workers, and gave it four months to frame a scheme on the lines of the one Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank adopted after its own staff won in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court. Regularisation
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra harmonised two Full Bench rulings, held that the 15 clear days under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act run from the day the notice is posted, found a one-day shortfall in the notice to Tikhiri Sarpanch Chameli Ojha, rejected a 42-gram envelope as proof that the requisition and resolution were enclosed, and asked
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma held that the Electricity Act vests suitability in the Selection Committee headed by a retired High Court judge, that the Government may only pick one of the two names recommended, and that rejecting the panel for want of apex-scale seniority was arbitrary and a case of legal mala fide
Applying the Supreme Court test in Home Care Retail for an unsuccessful party seeking post-award relief under Section 9, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held prima facie that the arbitrator branded a Rs 5.20 crore NBFC loan sanction letter a sham without a single question on its genuineness being put to the witness from the lender, and that the amended Specific Re
Answering a reference that split three single-judge rulings, Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma held that the statutory bond form makes forfeiture the immediate consequence of the absence of the accused, that the show-cause notice belongs to the recovery stage, and that a chance to produce the accused is judicial discretion, not a right.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the six-month limitation in Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act does not reach a pure contract claim, that DDA could not sit on a 20-page final bill by calling it an abstract, and that every delay-related claim fell to the undertaking the contractor himself gave in his extension application that he would not claim any ext
