High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
A Division Bench upheld the finding that the Kerala State Minority Commission lacks jurisdiction to direct eviction of a person, but modified the Single Judge's order restoring possession.
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that a private criminal contempt petition filed without the Advocate General's consent cannot be numbered or admitted on the judicial side without first being placed before the Chief Justice.
The Kerala High Court has given the Union two weeks to place a comprehensive action plan before it in three consolidated PILs raising environmental and shipping-related concerns.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Railways' appeal against a Rs 8 lakh compensation award, holding that an authorised catering waiter who fell between coaches was a deemed railway servant and bona fide passenger.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued a structured timetable for amending AITA's Constitution and holding fresh elections, without disturbing the court-appointed Administrator.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a quashing petition targeting a 2016 vigilance FIR, holding that delay alone cannot defeat a Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution where no actual prejudice is shown.
The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the DMA lacks jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act to remove a Councillor, as that quasi-judicial power belongs solely to the State Government.
The Nagpur Bench held that Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 confers only administrative powers and does not extend to interfering with a trust's election process once commenced.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a married woman at 26 weeks and 11 days to terminate her pregnancy after a multi-specialist Medical Board unanimously advised it.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that an injured claimant who pleaded guilty to rash driving in a criminal case cannot claim compensation before the MACT, as the plea amounts to an admission of sole fault.
The High Court of Uttarakhand found that the food analyst's report gave no reason why "Maha Value" on a snack packet was false or misleading, and quashed penalties imposed on PepsiCo India.
The Delhi High Court held that NTPC Renewable invoked the wrong contractual clauses to terminate awards and issued a suspension order without any show cause notice or hearing.
Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed three connected appeals, holding that the Narsinhji Temple at Village Dhaman is a public trust and its properties belong to the deity, not the Mahant's heirs.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore applied its earlier ruling in Malcolm Murrays to direct that only the disputed cyber-fraud amount be ring-fenced in a fixed deposit, freeing the rest of the account.
The Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench directed BPCL, HPCL and IOCL to consider a dedicated ethanol plant's representation for full allocation under its Long-Term Offtake Agreement.
Dismissing a 2004 criminal appeal, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC and directed the State Legal Services Authority to facilitate compensation for the victim.
The High Court of Uttarakhand found the arbitral tribunal's circle-rate-based compensation lawful under Section 26 of the 2013 Act, while holding that findings on two other issues were not in accordance with law.
The Gujarat High Court held that a Family Court cannot reject a suit for declaration of Muslim mutual-consent divorce on the ground that the opposite party never denied the Talaaq.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC for the 1998 murder of Jagpal Singh, finding eyewitness testimony reliable and motive proved through defence witnesses.
Justice Sanjay Dhar restored a suit over land at Nandpora Nigeen, Srinagar, finding that whether a private partition occurred after a 1971 arbitral award is a question of fact requiring trial.
Justice Tejas Karia held the GNCTD's show-cause notice proposing a CAG audit of BSES distribution companies was premature to challenge and materially distinguishable from the 2015 URJA Judgment.
Justice S. Rachaiah dismissed four separate bail petitions arising from Crime No. 69/2025, holding that vulgar social media comments targeting a woman's dignity warranted rejection to send a deterrent message.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a writ petition challenging a single coconut tree on a neighbour's property, finding no genuine danger and faulting ego over evidence.
The Rajasthan High Court found the RCSAT Registrar's affidavit unsatisfactory and directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel to enquire whether a clerk was made a scapegoat.
