Latest Punjab Haryana Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an advocate accused of fabricating a Punjab and Haryana High Court bail order and cheating complainants of over ₹10.92 lakh.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the pro-rata methodology introduced by EPFO's 2024 internal e-mail and 2025 circular has no basis in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and cannot override statutory rules.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a bomb explosion aboard the Janta Express in 1992 constitutes an 'accident' under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, making the Union of India liable to pay compensation to the families of five deceased passengers.
Justice Harkesh Manuja holds that the Reference Authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act retains full independent power to assess market value beyond Section 26 parameters.
The club occupies 132 acres of prime public land and pays just 0.255% of assessed rent; Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismisses its 14-year-old challenge to a CIC order.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma dismissed a contempt petition as an abuse of process after the very order alleged to have been disobeyed had already been set aside by a Division Bench, and imposed ₹50,000 costs on the petitioners.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil found no money trail to the petitioner, noted the Managing Director was not arraigned, and held continued detention served no purpose.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj dismissed a regular bail petition, finding the accused's alleged role in a scheme that extracted Rs 28.5 lakhs by falsely claiming access to judges was not peripheral.
Justice Namit Kumar held that Note 1 and Note 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules do not apply when only one widow survives the deceased government employee.
Justice Sumeet Goel affirmed concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that an admitted cheque signature triggers the presumption of liability and a bald security-cheque plea cannot rebut it.
The High Court set aside a Gurugram magistrate's summoning order under Section 304-A IPC, holding the trial court violated its own direction to obtain a PGI Chandigarh expert report before proceeding.
A widow's civil suit for damages after her son's intentional killing was not barred by the two-year limit under Article 82, which governs only Fatal Accidents Act claims, the High Court held.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that the Civil Judge, Chandigarh ignored the High Court's own Video Conferencing Rules when dismissing a request to record an elderly witness's testimony virtually.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil directed a State-constituted committee to re-examine individual claims of Haryana government employees and pensioners denied medical reimbursement on technical grounds.
The Division Bench found that the Union of India had repeatedly relaxed the three-year central deputation rule for other IAS officers but withheld the same benefit from Khemka without any differentiating reason.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that invoking preventive detention immediately after bail was granted, without exhausting ordinary criminal law remedies, rendered the order punitive and constitutionally unsustainable.
Punjab & Haryana High Court found that Prerit Goel suppressed his Vanuatu citizenship when obtaining a Look Out Circular quashing order, and dismissed his travel-abroad application with Rs. 50,000 costs.
Residents of Sushma Valencia Apartments, stranded by an absconding developer, win interim relief as the High Court directs PSPCL to provide temporary electricity connections on payment of usual charges plus Rs. 20,000 per consumer.
A diploma student who had one exam pending challenged PSPCL's cut-off date for its Junior Engineer recruitment; the High Court upheld the condition as constitutionally valid.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed interim release of a truck confiscated under the NDPS Act, holding that no statutory bar prevents such relief and that prolonged parking destroys the vehicle's value.
A Division Bench held that news reports of the Kotkapura FIR trial transfer were fair and accurate under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, because the judgment had already been pronounced in open court.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth exercised revisional jurisdiction to restore anticipatory bail to Karam Singh after the Sessions Court withdrew interim protection solely on the investigating officer's plea for custodial interrogation.
