High Court judgments and orders from across India, with the legal point made clear.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad upheld the removal and next-term disqualification of the President of Nagar Panchayat Bilaigarh, holding that Section 41-A operates independently of an election challenge under Section 20.
Justice P.M. Raval held that the same facts had been taken to three police stations, that an FSL report excluded the forgery allegation, and that one FIR was a manifest counter-blast under Category 7 of Bhajan Lal.
Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside the Medical Assessment and Rating Board's speaking order, revived the 2025-26 application for 2026-27, and let the Institute into the stray round if a fresh inspection is satisfactory.
Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad dismissed three appeals, held that restraining those who came to help establishes common intention, and rejected an alibi contradicted by the marriage card.
Justices D.K. Singh and T.M. Nadaf set aside the DRT and DRAT orders and the Recovery Officer's attachment, holding a personal guarantee creates no proprietary security over unlisted assets and no security at all over jointly held shares.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja set aside a 2003 life sentence, holding the declarations did not present a consistent account and that a neighbour's unchallenged evidence placed the appellant outside the house.
Justices Gita Gopi and L.S. Pirzada dismissed a 97-page appeal against conviction, holding that motive need not be separately proved where the accused's own conduct supplies it.
Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati quashed the order in original, holding the exercise would have been revenue-neutral and that Section 74 cannot be a routine formula for bypassing normal limitation.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Anuj Singh dismissed the appeal, held the acquitted co-accused's case was distinct, and ordered the State to pay the parents ₹4,00,000 within seven days.
Justice Krishna Rao held that foreign exchange falls within the Revenue and Tax Laws group under the Court's own classification rules, released three writ petitions, and extended interim protection to 3 December 2026.
Justice Ajay Digpaul held the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be divorced from proper addressing, and refused to disturb the trial court's finding under Article 227.
Justice Kardak Ete held that practical difficulties do not establish impracticability under Rule 20, and that the period during which the Meghalaya High Court's stay operated had not been reckoned with.
Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad held that even a consent decree is assailable where the consent is in question, and sent the case back to the Family Court for an inquiry into the date of marriage.
Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside a decree of restitution of conjugal rights as perverse, holding that the test of reasonableness was never applied to her defence.
Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal declined a mandamus to register an FIR, setting out the layered remedies under the CrPC and the BNSS and holding that sanction operates at cognizance and not before it.
Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi set aside ten dismissal orders, holding that a reference court's award is a decree and that absence of a proper party does not justify dismissal without inquiry.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla acquitted a man prosecuted since 2007, holding that the chemical examiner never said the liquor differed from licensed distillery spirit and that two bottles are within the permissible limit.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a revision against concurrent convictions under Section 138, holding there is no infirmity in a sentence imposed in default of payment of compensation.
Justice A.K. Mohapatra held the State Commission had dismissed the condonation application mechanically, but confined his intervention to the decision-making process and attached a condition to the relief.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the acceptance of five MLAs' resignations and issued a time-bound mandamus on the Tenth Schedule proceedings.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish allowed five appeals, ordered a three-member police committee on the investigating officer, and asked the Home Department to report in a month.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra found no jurisdictional error and declined Article 226 relief against an appealable order, preserving the appeal.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a revision pending since 2014, upholding a conviction under Section 354 IPC and a sentence of one year's simple imprisonment.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a revision from 2014, upholding convictions from a 2009 accident at Nahan and declining to reduce the sentence.
