High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma found that a promotion file ready for the Screening Committee was parked with a Please speak note while a parallel file carried the Chief Minister approval through in a single day, with no public interest shown and the notes of the Department itself pointing the other way.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar held that consumption, not generation, is the taxable event under Section 113(2)(d) of the DMC Act, that Bye-Law 3(3) only names the person liable, and that a demand raised in 2021 for the years 2006 to 2018 was not barred by delay.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that eleven hearing dates do not amount to natural justice if the expenditure material the colleges filed was never actually examined, set aside the refund directions and sent the matter back to the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee with a three-month timeline.
Justice Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with a Rent Controller order that declined to take on record withdrawn eviction petitions and disputed shop-for-rent banner photos, holding that other shops in the same premises are not the same property under the 2010 disclosure direction and that the material did not eclipse the landlords bona fide need.
Justice Sanjeev Narula held that a magistrate cannot infer abscondence from an unexecuted warrant when the CBI had the accused Australian address and never tried it, and that cheating and forgery are not Section 82(4) offences. The arrest warrants, the Red Notice and the extradition request stand.
Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja held that the May 2022 amendment to Rule 19 of the Collegiate Branch Rules cannot govern a recruitment advertised in November 2021, that Ajay Hasia does not control public employment, and that Dr Rachita Mathur concealed an earlier Jodhpur petition on the same point.
Justice Aryak Dutt found the 36-minute film titled How Modi and Adani Stole India to be a dramatised narrative asserting facts that no authority has found, and held that a repost after the Government had it disabled showed a want of good faith.
Justice Vinay Saraf at Indore held that the twelve-year limitation for executing a January 2000 award ran from the day the Section 34 objections were dismissed in 2002, not from the second appeal decided in 2019, because the doctrine of merger has no application to arbitral awards.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that testimony about two other girls the accused allegedly molested the same night was inadmissible under Sections 5 and 14 of the Evidence Act, and that the Sessions court relied on it to uphold the conviction.
Justice Alok Awasthi at Indore set aside a two-year sentence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that a complainant who already faced police action, a memory card with no Section 65B certificate and notes found under an open register did not prove demand or acceptance. The Lokayukt plea for leave to appeal the partial acquittal was d
Justice Yash Paul Bourney held that a landlord who spent about Rs 25 lakh refitting a Srinagar commercial block on the strength of a tenant's claimed university credentials and corporate clients had alleged more than a rent default, and that the dispute could not be written off as civil at the threshold.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete found the two four-letter marks phonetically similar yet held that pain-relief tablets bought at pharmacies and incubators bought by hospital procurement teams are too far apart for confusion, and dismissed the pharma company appeal against the Registrar.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that every occupant of a vehicle is prima facie in conscious possession of contraband found in it, that the Section 37 twin conditions were not met, and that the Supreme Court made its grounds-of-arrest ruling prospective.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla found that Firoz Khan should have been charged under Section 21, not Section 22, because dextropropoxyphene is not a scheduled psychotropic substance, but held the error caused no prejudice and that 202 capsules put him 0.2 grams over the small-quantity line.
Justice Rana Vikram Singh quashed a 2016 cognizance order against an advocate of 35 years standing who gave two title opinions in 2002 and 2003, holding that no ingredient of breach of trust, cheating, forgery or conspiracy was alleged against him and that a magistrate cannot take cognizance by filling a blank in a clerk-drafted order.
A Chief Justice-led bench held that a person named in material forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate has no right to be heard before a court directs an FIR, found the Minister had sixteen days to act and did nothing, and closed the contempt petition once the case was registered.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a 2015 letter about serving a rejection order was not an acknowledgment of debt, that a 2019 promise to decide after permission from higher authorities was neither an acknowledgment nor a promise to pay, and that the machinery supplied to nine training institutes was defective.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad declined to pick between rival claimants to the secretaryship of an Ambikapur agriculture college society, and instead ordered the Registrar of Firms and Societies to finish its inquiry and rule, after which the State Bank of India must let the winners operate the account.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the statutory ceiling in the MTP Act does not constrain a constitutional court, relied on the Medical Board finding that the minor was medically and psychologically fit, and ordered the State to pay for the procedure and preserve foetal tissue for the rape investigation.
Deciding twelve VAT writ petitions together, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the right of appeal, and the fee it carries, vests when the assessing officer first questions a return, and that the 2016 notification raising the Legal Benefit Fund levy from 0.5% to 1% has no retrospective reach.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act had no role where nothing was taken from the body of the accused, that the driver and conductor were independent enough, and that three years for 28 grams was disproportionate when 250 grams is the commercial line.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati agreed the refund claim was late on the ordinary statutory clock, but refused to let a summary uploaded two years after the appellate order revive a demand that had already been set aside.
A division bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Ram Sharma set aside the NIA special court's refusal, finding that Ramjit Nagesiya was placed in the observing team rather than the attacking party, has been in custody since November 2020, and stands on the same footing as two co-accused already released.
Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi set aside a Narasaraopet executing court order that threw out a decree-holder because the mortgaged plot was assigned land, and sent the matter back for a reasoned finding on whether the house site can lawfully be sold.
