High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale quashed theft and wrongful restraint cases brought against members and staff of a Navi Mumbai society, holding both were offshoots of a civil dispute over maintenance and encroachment.
Justice Arun R. Pednekar upheld the eviction of State Bank of India from its Vile Parle staff quarters, holding that paying rent to the landowner for decades worked an implied surrender up an unregistered chain of sub-leases.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted bail to a 29-year-old after appointing a legal aid lawyer for the 16-year-old girl, relying on her own statement while noting she said money may have changed hands between her relatives and the accused.
Justices Kishore C. Sant and Abasaheb D. Shinde dismissed review applications by junior engineers appointed from a wait list, holding that a seniority grievance already answered cannot be reargued as an error on the face of the record.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash quashed two refusals of approval under Section 10(23C)(via), holding that a surplus does not by itself show a profit purpose and that penalising a hospital for improving its equipment inverts the test.
Justice Arif S. Doctor dismissed an ex-employee application to recall an ex parte order and imposed costs of 5 lakh rupees, holding that a grievance about the execution of a commission belongs in court, not in a police station.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi directed AICTE to enable download of an Extension of Approval its own dashboard already showed as issued, and protected admissions made under an interim order.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav released two brothers on bail in a 2021 murder case, holding that the ignominy of a trial that will not conclude in the foreseeable future is itself a ground, without any opinion on the merits.
Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda rejected a jurisdiction challenge to a GST order-in-original and sent the assessee to its statutory appeal, with the writ period excluded from limitation.
Justice A. Badharudeen set aside the Government's decision to appoint a Special Investigation Team to enquire instead of registering a case, and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR forthwith.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne confirmed the basement purchaser's membership but confined it to the 59.02 square metres sanctioned as storage, to be treated as residential for redevelopment, and refused a stay.
Justice Amit Borkar declined to decide a Section 11 application either way, holding that an authoritative answer is better than another judgment which may itself lead to another reference.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Anuj Singh affirmed life sentences for a 1985 political killing, holding that separate attribution of every injury to each member of an unlawful assembly is not required.
Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. set aside a KAAPA detention, holding the Government acts in a dual capacity and must consider a representation independently without waiting for the Board.
Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai dismissed six writ petitions by the Department of Posts, holding the anomaly came from an ACP upgradation and not from the mode of recruitment.
Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Sudip Deb held that the right to file a cross-objection in an income tax appeal to the High Court need not be spelt out, and declined to follow two decisions to the contrary.
Justice Jasmeet Singh excluded a senior citizen's one-third undivided share from the e-auction, holding that if the property sells as a whole she would be left chasing an auction purchaser or a money claim.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a challenge to a majority award on a highway maintenance contract, holding the Tribunal's reading of the security deposit clauses was a plausible view.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja condoned the delay and then refused leave, holding no prima facie case was made out against men acquitted of murder in 2021.
Justice Sanjeev Narula restored a Vice-Principal's appeal against her 2017 termination, directed it be decided within four months, and ordered the school to pay her suspension-period dues in eight weeks.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a second appeal, holding the declaration of surrender was made to defeat the defendant's right of maintenance and could not defeat her right of residence under Section 39.
Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed nineteen petitions against eviction notices, declining to extend to Section 95A a jurisdictional bar laid down for Section 79-A.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted bail on the ground of long incarceration alone, recording that the ignominy of a trial not commencing in the near foreseeable future was apparent.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held the State could not treat a quashed notification as alive merely because an SLP was pending, but let the appointments stand with a mandatory condition written into every order.
