High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
Applying the protocol a Division Bench laid down in February, the Court clears a termination beyond the statutory ceiling after fresh verification of the survivor's fitness.
Upholding arrears, mesne profits and 9 per cent interest, the Court refuses to receive documents on appeal that the appellant never tried to file at trial.
An Indian court cannot take judicial notice of an EU regulation, the Delhi High Court holds, and a software vendor cannot rely on one it has not proved to walk away from an Indian contract.
A Division Bench dismisses SAIL's appeal over a coking coal shipping contract, holding a default clause aimed at supplier failure could not excuse a charterer's own shortfall.
A Division Bench restores a unanimous arbitral award on a hotel fire claim, holding that delay in rendition vitiates an award only when it is unexplained and has affected the findings.
A Division Bench holds the plaintiffs had lost their leasehold interest before they sued, sets aside both the eviction decree and mesne profits, and annuls every step taken under them.
A Division Bench affirms the acquittal in a 1999 railway compartment murder, finding the only two eyewitnesses were relatives whose account the physical evidence did not support.
The Revenue cannot use Section 263 to reopen a refund processed under Section 143(1), the Court holds, because the intimation that allowed it is not an order at all.
Finding the enquiry rested on an unproved assumption and withheld documents, the Court orders reinstatement with continuity of service twelve years after the dismissal.
A Division Bench holds that a signed Booking Note incorporating rider clauses 20 to 41 did not carry the arbitration clause at 43, and restrains the LMAA reference.
Squeezing a cigarette brand into the 15% a statutory warning leaves it sharpens the risk of deception, a Calcutta Division Bench holds, upholding an injunction protecting Gold Flake.
A witness produced at trial without any statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC deprives the defence of contradiction, the Court holds, and cannot anchor a conviction.
Answering a preliminary objection raised by the State's own law officers, a Division Bench holds Section 385 CrPC governs only appeals that survive summary dismissal under Section 384.
Using the power to modify recognised in Gayatri Balaswamy, a Division Bench ties the higher rate to the period the claimants were actually repaying their loans.
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Gupta, the Court holds an accused has no right to copies of un-relied material at the charge stage, and departs from its own earlier view.
The Srinagar Bench refused to strike down Condition No. 40 governing amusement facilities at Manasbal, but directed the Wullar Manasbal Development Authority to designate a specific site within two weeks.
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed the concerned DCP to personally appear and brief the prosecutor in two pending NDPS bail applications, warning that failure would be taken as the State's consent to release both accused.
The High Court of Manipur set aside an NDPS conviction entered on a guilty plea, ruling the Special Court's one-and-a-half-line order failed the mandatory subjective-satisfaction requirement of Section 229 CrPC.
Justice Sandeep Jain held that an adult's choice of faith and life partner cannot be overridden by family disapproval, setting Ayush Malik at liberty after interacting with him in court.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the State's petition challenging bail granted to a man accused of cultivating opium poppy on one marla of land, finding no breach of bail conditions and Section 37 inapplicable.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand found that the Class-I admission form, not the matriculation certificate, controls age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act, and issued extensive interim directions on preliminary assessments and aftercare.
