Daily Judgments of 13 October
Supreme Court of India
Crl.A. No.-004456-004456 - 2025
Parties: RAHUL AGARWAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE B. R. GAVAI, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that a judicial magistrate can compel a person, whether an accused or a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation, despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. Citing Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kathi Kalu Oghad v. State of Bombay, the Court concluded that voice samples are akin to handwriting or fingerprint samples, which do not constitute testimonial compulsion and therefore do not infringe upon the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
C.A. No.-012653-012653 - 2025
Parties: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs M/S SANTI CERAMICS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The Court of India allowed the State of West Bengal’s appeal against a High Court ruling that mandated the restoration of acquired land to a corporate entity. The Court determined that the principles from Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal, which aimed to protect vulnerable farmers, do not apply to the corporate entity due to its substantial assets and institutional support. The Court noted that the entity had accepted compensation and remained inactive during the litigation, thus forfeiting its claim to the judicial remedy. The High Court’s orders were set aside, and the entity’s writ petition was dismissed, although it was granted limited relief to remove structures and machinery from the acquired land within a specified timeframe.
Crl.A. No.-004416-004416 - 2025
Parties: G. PRASAD RAGHAVAN vs UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court quashed the lower courts’ dismissal of the discharge application for the appellant (accused no. 2), ruling that he was a minor at the time of the alleged fraud in 2015. The court determined that the elements of offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not established against him, as there was no evidence indicating his involvement in any criminal activity.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(CRL)-3321/2025
Parties: TRUSHTIMA SHARMA vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed a writ petition for habeas corpus regarding Laxmi Narayan Jilowa, who appeared in court and stated he was not illegally detained and was free to live as he wished. The court unanimously agreed to dispose of the petition, finding no further orders necessary.
W.P.(C)-3390/2021
Parties: AMBEDKHAR GANGULY STUDENT HOUSE FOR WOMEN UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. vs ANILYADAV
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court upheld an amicable settlement in which the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the respondent by 31.10.2025, settling all claims. The court ordered the release of the amount already deposited by the petitioner, with interest, to the respondent. If the deposited amount is less than Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the petitioner must pay the balance by the due date. The petition was disposed of in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
W.P.(CRL)-335/2024
Parties: VISHAL YADAV & ANR. vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 14/2023 against Vishal Yadav and another, charged under IPC Sections 406, 420, and 120B, after finding that the parties had amicably settled their dispute. The accused paid Rs. 51,80,231 to the complainant. Citing Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court determined that quashing the FIR served the interests of justice, contingent upon the accused depositing Rs. 20,000 each with the Advocates Welfare Trust.
W.P.(CRL)-3161/2025
Parties: LAL MOHAMMAD vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court held that the petitioner’s 22-year-old daughter, having been recovered and expressing her desire to live with her husband rather than her parents, is entitled to make her own independent decisions as a major. Consequently, no further orders were necessary, and the petition was disposed of.
CRL.M.C.-642/2020
Parties: NISHANT MUKUL vs NISCHAL AGGARWAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that a petitioner, as a director of the accused company when the cheques were issued, can be vicariously liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for their dishonor. The petitioner’s claim of having resigned prior to the dishonor is a disputed fact unsuitable for pre-trial resolution under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court determined that the complainant’s allegations are sufficient to proceed to trial, allowing the petitioner to present his defense during the trial.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-61/2024
Parties: SABU TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED vs RAJKUMAR SABU & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the registered owner of the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark is prima facie entitled to a remedy for infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court recognized the registration as prima facie evidence of validity, placing the burden on the appellants to contest it. Although the appellants claimed prior use from 1993 and the respondent from 1972/1983, the court found the evidence inconclusive at this stage, necessitating further examination during trial. The court refrained from making a definitive ruling on prior use, indicating it requires detailed scrutiny in the trial.
CRL.A.-657/2024
Parties: RAM KRISHAN SINGH @ DADU vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 with Section 5(l) and (m) of the POCSO Act, but upheld the conviction under Section 10 with Section 9(m). The court identified contradictions in the testimonies of the child victim, her mother, and the tuition teacher regarding incident details and dates. Medical and forensic evidence did not support the more serious charges. However, the child victim’s account of inappropriate touching, corroborated by the tuition teacher, was sufficient for the lesser offense conviction. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 10, which he had already served, leading to his release unless required in another case.
CRL.REV.P.-311/2023
Parties: PRIYA NARAYANAN & ORS. vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s order framing charges against school authorities and individuals under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The court ruled that the petitioners’ preliminary in-house inquiry into the alleged incident was conducted promptly and in line with guidelines. It found that the delay in reporting to the police was not intentional, as the school informed the complainant soon after learning of the incident. The court emphasized that Section 21 does not specify a reporting timeframe, and mere delay does not equate to a failure to report. Additionally, the petitioners’ conduct did not raise sufficient suspicion to warrant charges.
W.P.(C)-15533/2025
Parties: M/S AVIRAJ UDYOG THROUGH ITS PROPREITOR GUNEET SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court determined that the validity of the challenged notifications is contingent upon a pending Supreme Court decision. It found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, which was improperly uploaded on the GST portal, leading to a lack of awareness. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the adjudicating authority, allowing the petitioner to file a reply and be heard. The final decision by the adjudicating authority will depend on both the Supreme Court’s ruling in the related matter and the High Court’s ruling in another related case.
W.P.(C)-15611/2025
Parties: FUTURE CONSUMER LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court upheld the validity of an unsigned order-in-original against Future Consumer Limited, citing the accompanying DRC-07 form that identified the issuing officer. However, it annulled the order related to the petitioner’s rectification application due to the authority’s failure to grant a personal hearing as mandated by the third proviso of Section 161 of the CGST Act. The court permitted the petitioner to appeal the original order within the designated timeframe, instructing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on its merits without dismissing it for being time-barred.
CS(COMM)-533/2018
Parties: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V vs M. BATHLA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The court ruled that the plaintiff did not prove infringement of its patent by the defendants’ VCD replication process. The plaintiff’s claim mapping to the industry standard was deemed flawed, as it failed to identify essential elements of the standard that would require the patented system. The court concluded that the defendants’ system did not incorporate the transmission or compression mechanisms covered by the plaintiff’s patent, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
W.P.(C)-15530/2025
Parties: ENVIRO TECH VENTURES LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court ruled that the challenge to the notifications under the GST Act is pending before the Supreme Court. It found that the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order for adjudication on merits, noting that any further actions would depend on the Supreme Court’s decision in the related matter. The court preserved the rights and remedies of the parties.
W.P.(C)-13109/2019
Parties: THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION vs SHRI S P RANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that the petition by the Chairman of the Central Board of Secondary Education against the Appellate Authority’s order under the Payment of Gratuity Act was rendered infructuous due to a departmental inquiry conducted by the petitioner. The court ordered the release of the deposited amount, allocating 2/3 to the respondent and 1/3 to the petitioner, while preserving the parties’ rights to contest the inquiry proceedings. The petition was disposed of based on the consensus between the parties.
W.P.(C)-2679/2022
Parties: SUMIT SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court quashed the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature for Indian Army enrollment, which was based on an alleged fabricated domicile certificate. The court found the evidence of fabrication insufficient, as it relied solely on a communication from the SDM’s office without further investigation. The petitioner had successfully completed all selection rounds, with disqualification occurring solely due to the domicile certificate issue. Given the case’s unique circumstances, the court granted equitable relief, allowing the writ petition, while clarifying that this ruling does not permit the use of fabricated certificates for entry into the Army.
C.R.P.-50/2024
Parties: RAKESH SHARMA vs VIKRAM SARASWAT
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court ruled that the petition challenging the trial court’s interim order in execution proceedings was not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court stated that interim orders not resolving the main dispute are not subject to revision under Section 115. Additionally, the court noted that the issue had been previously adjudicated in another petition, which had been dismissed with permission to pursue appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition.
CRL.L.P.-349/2022
Parties: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI vs SHYAM DULARI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court ruled that the State’s appeal against the respondents’ acquittal was not maintainable. It identified significant discrepancies and evidentiary gaps in the prosecution’s case, which failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Medical evidence contradicted the complainant’s account, and witness testimonies were inconsistent regarding the incident’s date. The Court also considered the possibility of the complaint being motivated by prior enmity. Ultimately, the High Court determined that the State did not establish a prima facie case or present sufficient grounds for interfering with the acquittal.
CRL.A.-734/2024
Parties: MR. ZAHID KHAN & ANR. vs THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of Zahid Khan and Rahid under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for grievous hurt to Shahbuddin and his son Asif. The court found sufficient evidence of guilt from the testimony of eyewitness Asif and medical evidence, despite the complainant’s hostility. The sentence was modified, allowing probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, due to the appellants’ rehabilitative efforts and lack of further criminal involvement.
W.P.(C)-15612/2025
Parties: M/S RAJESH METALS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJESH KAKAR vs OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court ruled that the petitioner’s writ petition against a show-cause notice for alleged fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) claims is not maintainable, as such factual assessments are better suited for the appellate authority under the CGST Act. The Court observed potential violations of natural justice due to the impugned order not fully addressing the petitioner’s detailed reply. Consequently, it allowed the petitioner to appeal the order, contingent on costs, and instructed the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal on its merits, without dismissing it on limitation grounds if filed timely.
W.P.(C)-15495/2025
Parties: M/S WELCUT INDUSTRIES vs COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI, NORTH COMMISIONERATE AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court ruled that the petitioner may deposit 10% of the Rs. 27,000 demand to stay recovery proceedings until the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational. The court emphasized that the Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over such appeals, is not yet functional. The petitioner must make the deposit by 15th November, 2025, after which the order will remain stayed. The decision centered on the interpretation of applicable law and circulars to grant relief in light of the Tribunal’s non-functionality.
W.P.(C)-15515/2025
Parties: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS vs EX SGT NITESH KUMAR(772946-G)
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition, affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to grant a disability pension to Ex Sgt Nitesh Kumar. The court noted that Kumar served over 22 years before being diagnosed with primary hypertension, which was not linked to his military service. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that the employer must disprove the presumption of service-related disability. The Release Medical Board failed to adequately justify that Kumar’s condition was undetectable at enlistment, leading to the upholding of the AFT’s ruling for a 50% disability pension.
W.P.(C)-15543/2025
Parties: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs MWO KISHORE KUMAR (RETD) (666695)
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s petition against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) order granting a disability pension to a retired Air Force officer for primary hypertension. The court established that if a service member has a disability at discharge and no record exists at entry, the presumption is that the disability is linked to military service. The burden to rebut this presumption lies with the employer, which the Union failed to do. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijender Singh v UOI on disability attribution and aggravation, the court found the AFT’s decision legally sound and did not identify any apparent legal error warranting interference.
CRL.M.C.-6172/2025
Parties: MANGAL SINGH vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted the petitioner’s request for preservation of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Location Charts related to the case, finding that the trial court incorrectly dismissed the application as “premature.” The court clarified that the principles from State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi were not relevant, as the petitioner sought preservation rather than production of records. The decision referenced Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of preserving records to uphold the accused’s right to a fair defense.
LPA-213/2024
Parties: RUMANA THROUGH FATHER MR HEMANT AND ORS vs BLUEBELLS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL KAILASH AND ANR
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court ruled that the Directorate of Education (DoE) can regulate fees of privately managed, unaided schools to prevent profiteering, commercialization, and capitation fees, but cannot exercise unrestricted power over fee regulation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed the limited scope of the DoE’s authority. It permitted the DoE to reassess compliance with the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, ensuring schools receive a fair hearing.
W.P.(C)-13531/2018
Parties: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vs KARTAR SINGH
Judge(s): JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the CPIO’s response to an RTI application, indicating the unavailability of the relevant file and advising the applicant to contact the UPSC, did not constitute a denial of information under the RTI Act. The court highlighted that the CIC’s observations confirmed the file’s non-availability, undermining claims of improper response. It noted the CPIO’s good faith in directing the applicant to the UPSC, which is responsible for DPC minutes and had previously clarified it does not hold such records. As the penalty on the CPIO had been paid, no further recovery directions were issued.
W.P.(C)-13759/2025
Parties: HITESH KUMAR vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court dismissed a petition from a Scheduled Caste candidate regarding the CUET PG Examination for LL.M. admission. The court ruled that the grievance about the University not posting a public notice for Spot Round III on the dedicated ‘PG Admission’ tab was unfounded, as the petitioner was aware that notifications were published on both the home page and the dedicated tab. Additionally, the court highlighted that the admission process was concluded with no vacancies available.
W.P.(C)-15445/2025
Parties: ARUN KUMAR SAINI vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to refrain from taking coercive action against the petitioner’s property pending the appeal against a demolition order, acknowledging the Appellate Tribunal’s non-functionality due to the absence of a Presiding Officer. The protection will extend automatically to the next hearing date if the Tribunal remains non-functional. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, which will be determined by the Tribunal after hearing both parties.
FAO (COMM)-262/2023
Parties: THE GOVTERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI (GNCTD/UOI) vs M/S R. S. SHARMA CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court condoned a 55-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Government of National Capital Territory, determining the delay was due to procedural complexities rather than intentional neglect. The court referenced the 60-day limitation period for appeals in commercial disputes as established in Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. It acknowledged that while condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires caution, the appellant’s explanation was credible and the delay was not gross. The court emphasized that justice should prevail over technicalities, especially when delays are due to institutional processes, and allowed the delay on the condition that the appellant pays costs to the respondent.
W.P.(C)-15508/2025
Parties: RAJWANTI DESHWAL vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi violated principles of natural justice by issuing a demolition order without serving a show cause notice. The court granted interim relief, preventing further coercive action against the petitioner’s property for four weeks, allowing time to file an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal. The court emphasized that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, which will be determined by the Tribunal.
W.P.(C)-15442/2025
Parties: ARTI ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that Arti Enterprises is entitled to a 7-month extension to vacate catering units allocated by the railways, citing precedent where similar extensions were granted. The court dismissed the railways’ claim of lack of territorial jurisdiction, having previously ruled in favor of petitioners on this issue. The extension is contingent upon payment of license fees and an undertaking to vacate at the end of the period, and it does not prevent the railways from inviting new tenders after the extension.
W.P.(C)-11521/2025
Parties: ALKALI MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court disposed of a writ petition by the Alkali Manufacturers Association of India regarding the enforcement of the DGFT’s minimum import price notification for soda ash. The Customs Department and DGFT confirmed that the notification is being enforced for imports with bills of lading or entry issued after the notification date. Imports prior to this date are processed under existing legal frameworks. The DGFT’s office memorandum directed Customs authorities to ensure compliance with the import policy. The court directed Customs authorities to strictly implement the minimum import price notification.
W.P.(C)-15468/2025
Parties: MANAUVAR ALI vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the writ petition despite the petitioner’s catering unit being in Karnataka, citing the Railway Board’s headquarters in Delhi and the uniformity of the Catering Policy. The court granted a 7-month extension for the petitioner to vacate the premises, contingent on payment of license fees and an undertaking to vacate thereafter. It clarified that this extension does not prevent the Railways from inviting new tenders after the extended period.
W.P.(C)-10306/2025
Parties: SMT. SAYRA & ORS. vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of a pending civil suit with similar claims. It emphasized that a writ petition cannot be pursued concurrently with a civil suit on the same issue. Additionally, the court identified inconsistencies in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s Status Reports submitted to both courts. It mandated the MCD to conduct a hearing for the defendant in the civil suit and refrain from any coercive actions regarding the defendant’s property until the hearing concludes, requiring the MCD to finalize the hearing and issue orders within six weeks.
CS(OS)-230/2022
Parties: SMT NEETU SURI vs SH RAJESH MALIK & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Company Law
The High Court ruled that defendants No. 4 and 5 could not be removed from the case, as the plaintiff provided specific allegations regarding the illegal transfer of shares from the plaintiff’s late father’s companies to them. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the criteria for deleting parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court determined that these defendants were necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit. Consequently, the court dismissed their application for removal.
RFA(COMM)-503/2025
Parties: NASEEM AHMED vs DEEPAK SINGH
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s decree favoring the landlord under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s valuation of the suit premises based on judicial notice of rent escalation in metropolitan areas. The court confirmed that the criteria for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC were met: the landlord-tenant relationship was acknowledged, the tenancy was not subject to the Rent Control Act, and it was validly terminated.
CRL.A.-1085/2024
Parties: GAJRAJ @ AMIT @ KALICHARAN vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court modified Gajraj’s conviction from Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) to Section 308 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The court found that, although Gajraj participated in the attack with co-accused and intended to inflict serious injuries, the evidence did not prove he had the intention or knowledge to cause death. His involvement was limited to striking the victim with a stick, while a co-accused fired the gunshot. The court upheld the substantive sentence as time served, maintaining the sentence for default of fine payment.
W.P.(C)-15347/2025
Parties: NAVEEN KUMAR vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed Naveen Kumar’s writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, which had rejected his application due to delay and on merits. The court noted that the validity of the waitlist panel, where Kumar was placed, expired on 27.07.2023, and all vacancies had been filled up to serial no. 82 out of 92 candidates. The court ruled that a subsequent supplementary result notice issued by the respondent, following Tribunal directions in another case, could not extend the validity of the waitlist panel.
MAC.APP.-1132/2013
Parties: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs MEENU CHAWLA & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The High Court upheld a compensation award of ₹33,51,579 with 7.5% interest, rejecting the insurance company’s challenge. The court determined that the insurer failed to prove the offending vehicle was used for an unauthorized purpose. It ruled that operating outside the permitted area does not constitute a fundamental breach that would allow the insurer to deny liability. Citing prior judgments, the court emphasized that not all permit violations absolve the insurer of liability under Section 149(2)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
W.P.(C)-14393/2024
Parties: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs MAJOR GAURAV SHEORAN RETD
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that a retired army officer is entitled to a disability pension despite resignation, as the disability was linked to military service. The court distinguished this case from Union of India v. Ajay Wahi, where a voluntary retirement claim was denied. Citing Maj. (Retd.) Charanjit Singh Medi v. UOI, the court affirmed that a disability pension cannot be denied solely due to resignation.
W.P.(C)-15509/2025
Parties: M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court dismissed M/s Moms Cradle Private Limited’s writ petition (W.P.(C) 15509/2025) for permission to appeal an Order-in-Original dated February 4, 2025, which demanded repayment for fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. The court ruled that the order was properly communicated and that the company failed to appeal within the statutory 3+1 month period under Section 107 of the GST Act, emphasizing that the delay could not be condoned due to the Act’s specific limitation period. However, the court ordered the refund sought in another writ petition (W.P.(C) 12251/2025) to be granted and offset against the demand in the Order-in-Original.
W.P.(C)-12648/2019
Parties: EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTIONS LTD vs KULDEEP CHATURVEDI
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court set aside a Labor Tribunal award directing Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. to reinstate worker Kuldeep Chaturvedi with back wages, citing a lack of reasoning and findings supporting the Tribunal’s conclusions, violating principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the award of back wages necessitates proof of non-employment, which was not established. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
W.P.(C)-12657/2019
Parties: MRS. LAXMI vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order that closed Mrs. Laxmi’s contempt petition. The Court found that the respondents failed to justify the cut-off marks of 98 for the ST category, given that only 9 candidates were appointed out of 75 available posts. The Court directed the respondents to submit an affidavit clarifying the basis for the cut-off marks and confirming whether all ST posts were filled. It restored the contempt petition for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, instructing it to disregard prior orders.
W.P.(C)-9719/2021
Parties: VEENA KOHLI vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court ruled that the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) properly granted the petitioner permission for repair and renovation work on their property following approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee. The court mandated the petitioner to complete the work within six months and allowed NDMC to inspect the property post-completion if not notified by the petitioner. The court also annulled a prior order from NDMC’s Department of Architecture & Environs.
CW - 10255/2025
Parties: SHEERAJ PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the petitioner’s Additional Performance Security (APS) from a foreign bank, with an Indian bank as the Advising Party, complied with tender conditions under the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG) 2010. The court deemed the NHAI’s cancellation of the Letter of Acceptance arbitrary, as it failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in the APS as required by the tender process. Additionally, the court identified discriminatory practices by the NHAI in accepting APS from foreign banks in other instances while rejecting the petitioner’s submission. The court quashed the NHAI’s actions and mandated the petitioner to submit a new APS from an Indian bank within 15 days to continue the tender process.
W.P.(C)-12075/2021
Parties: M/S. COMPUTER MART vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) granted the petitioner permission for repair and renovation work on their property, contingent upon approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). The court mandated completion of the work within six months, after which the NDMC will inspect compliance with the approval. Additionally, the court annulled a prior NDMC order affecting the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition.
W.P.(C)-3897/2025
Parties: ZUBER vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation and the Development Authority to consider the petitioner’s request for reinstatement of his Veterinary Trade License and the de-sealing of his property. They must coordinate to issue the necessary orders within 4 weeks, contingent on the petitioner meeting MCD policies and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner is exempt from paying new fees if previously paid. This decision follows a prior judgment disposing of related cases.
CRL.L.P.-531/2022
Parties: STATE vs SUBHASH
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court ruled that the prosecution did not prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt regarding charges under IPC Sections 376(2), 342, 354A, 354D, and POCSO Act Sections 3, 4, 11, 12. The court identified contradictions in the victim’s and witnesses’ testimonies and noted a lack of independent corroborative evidence. It concluded that the presumptions under POCSO Act Sections 29 and 30 were inapplicable due to the failure to establish foundational facts, leading to the dismissal of the State’s petition for leave to appeal the acquittal.
CRL.L.P.-582/2022
Parties: STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) vs DEVENDER SINGH RANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the state’s petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent charged under the POCSO Act. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing significant contradictions in the child victims’ testimonies and the prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case. It ruled that no valid grounds existed for interfering with the acquittal and noted that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was inapplicable due to the lack of foundational facts and the delay in filing the complaint.
W.P.(C)-15326/2025
Parties: SURAJ INDUSTRIES vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court set aside the sales tax order against Suraj Industries, ruling that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to be heard prior to the order’s issuance. The court remanded the case to the adjudicating authority, instructing them to allow the petitioner to file a reply and present their case. Additionally, the court acknowledged that the validity of the central government notifications is under review by the Supreme Court in a separate case, and any decision by the adjudicating authority will depend on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
CRL.REV.P.-323/2025
Parties: STATE NCT OF DELHI vs J RAVI
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to discharge J Ravi from charges under IPC Sections 354, 376, 377, 506, and 509. It found that the delay in FIR registration and the nature of communications between the accused and the prosecutrix did not establish grave suspicion. The court emphasized that, despite the prosecutrix’s statement typically being given weight, the improbability of the allegations and evidence of a romantic relationship outweighed her oral testimony, leading to the conclusion that no grounds for trial existed.
W.P.(C)-15331/2025
Parties: SUNBEAM REAL VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 86 ZONE 9 DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court addressed challenges to Notification No. 09/2023 (Central Tax) and Notification No. 09/2023 (State Tax), noting that similar issues are pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025. The court retained the challenge to the State Notifications for consideration, referencing a lead matter. It found that the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice but did not request a personal hearing, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not subject to interference. The petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
W.P.(C)-15330/2025
Parties: AMIT KUMAR BASAU & ANR. vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 13 (SPECIAL ZONE) ZONE 12 DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court held that the petitioners were denied a proper opportunity to be heard before the impugned order, warranting remand to the adjudicating authority. The court acknowledged that the validity of the GST notifications is under consideration by the Supreme Court, and any remand order will be contingent on that outcome. Additionally, the court ruled that the writ petition from the unregistered partnership firm is maintainable as it seeks to enforce rights under the CGST Act.
W.P.(C)-15323/2025
Parties: AMIT KUMAR BASAU & ANR. vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 13 (SPECIAL ZONE) ZONE 12 DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court ruled that an unregistered partnership firm is not precluded from filing a writ petition to assert its rights under GST laws. The court overturned the previous order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority, mandating that the petitioner be allowed to respond to the show cause notice and present its case. The court noted that the validity of the GST notifications in question would be determined by the Supreme Court in a separate proceeding.
W.P.(C)-16365/2023
Parties: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS vs VINOD KUMAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to reinstate Constable Vinod Kumar, finding that the disciplinary authority violated Rule 16(xi) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, by not including the employee’s prior bad record as a specific charge and failing to provide him an opportunity to defend against it. The Court also noted that Kumar was in judicial custody and unable to respond to the show-cause notice, which denied him a fair chance to present his case. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring Kumar could respond to the inquiry officer’s findings.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-40/2024
Parties: AIR FORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD vs UMAXE PROJECTS PVT LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court ruled that the Appellant’s unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the Appellant was ineligible to make such an appointment. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that an ineligible party cannot appoint an arbitrator and that unilateral appointment clauses breach the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide a written waiver of the arbitrator’s disqualification as mandated by Section 12(5). As a result, the court annulled the arbitral awards issued by the sole arbitrator.
W.P.(C)-15391/2025
Parties: SAKSHI ELECRICALS POLYMERS ENGG CORPN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court ruled that the second show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was barred by limitation due to an extension granted in prior notifications, leading to its quashing. Regarding the first show cause notice, the court found that the petitioner’s reply had been duly considered by the adjudicating authority, thus upholding the impugned order and allowing the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Authority. The court acknowledged that the validity of the notifications is under challenge in a separate Supreme Court case, and the Appellate Authority’s decision will depend on that outcome.
MAC.APP.-445/2025
Parties: ARUN KUMARAN B & ANR. vs URMILA PAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The court allowed the appeal by the driver and vehicle owner, overturning the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s recovery rights granted to the insurance company. It determined that the driver possessed a valid driving license at the time of the accident, as supported by the driving license and Detailed Accident Report, rendering the Tribunal’s award on recovery rights inconsistent with the evidence.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-172/2023
Parties: INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED vs MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The Supreme Court ruled that the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by an ineligible General Manager invalidated the arbitral award. The court determined that the respondent did not provide a written waiver of the arbitrator’s ineligibility as mandated by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the single judge’s decision to annul the arbitral award.
W.P.(C)-14385/2021
Parties: SUMIT KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that petitions from railway constables for transfers closer to their spouses should be sympathetically considered. It analyzed the Railway Board circular permitting spousal transfers and directed timely decisions on the petitioners’ representations. The court highlighted the significance of spousal postings in line with Supreme Court precedents, while acknowledging the need to balance this with administrative exigencies.
W.P.(C)-15329/2025
Parties: AMIT KUMAR BASAU & ANR. vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 13 (SPECIAL ZONE), ZONE 12, DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court set aside the order against an unregistered partnership firm due to lack of proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, requiring the firm to respond to the show cause notice and attend a personal hearing. The court noted that the validity of the notifications is under review by the Supreme Court and clarified that the Adjudicating Authority’s order will depend on the Supreme Court’s ruling. Additionally, the court affirmed the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the firm with a partner as a petitioner.
Bombay High Court
WPL/32397/2025
Parties: INDU OIL AND SOAP CO Vs THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JUSTICE ASHWIN DAMODAR BHOBE
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court quashed a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354A of the Municipal Corporation Act, determining that the replacement of old rusted tin sheets on the factory roof constituted ‘tenantable repairs’ that did not require permission. The court found the respondents’ actions to be illegal and high-handed, as they failed to consider the petitioner’s argument regarding the nature of the work, and ordered the respondents to pay costs to the petitioner.
IAL/29119/2025
Parties: SIDDHARTH SONAJI INGLE, FOUNDER PRESIDENT LOK HITKARINI SABHA Vs HIGH COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION AND 15 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE SANDESH DADASAHEB PATIL
Area of Law: Constitutional Law
The High Court held that the right to safe roads is a fundamental right under Article 21, imposing an obligation on civic authorities to maintain public safety. Despite repeated orders, dangerous road conditions persist, resulting in injuries and fatalities, particularly among two-wheeler riders. The court criticized the lack of accountability among authorities and contractors, directing the formation of committees to assess and disburse compensation for damages caused by potholes and open manholes, to be recovered from responsible officials. It mandated strict disciplinary actions against those responsible for substandard work and required public awareness of the compensation process.
ITXA/14/2022
Parties: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 PUNE Vs RAMELEX PRIVATE LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE AARTI ARUN SATHE
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court upheld the CIT(A) and ITAT’s decision to limit the addition for alleged “bogus purchases” to 15% of the disputed amount. It found the assessee had sufficient documentary evidence supporting the genuineness of the purchases. The court criticized the revenue authorities for failing to provide necessary information and not allowing cross-examination of the alleged “hawala purchasers.” Additionally, it noted the pending VAT assessment for the year, deeming the revenue’s approach inappropriate. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law identified.
WPL/11226/2025
Parties: Archroma International India Private Limited 2010 11 Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1)
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA, JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court held that the timeline under Section 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to complete assessments as per the Dispute Resolution Panel’s directions within one month. The Assessing Officer’s failure to meet this timeline rendered a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.5,26,86,111 non-existent. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the Petitioner’s total income for AY 2010-2011, excluding the adjustment, and to refund excess taxes paid with interest within eight weeks. The Court emphasized that the mandatory timeline applies even in remand proceedings, rejecting the Revenue’s contrary argument.
IA/1285/2025
Parties: VALIMOHAMED HASHEM KHAKHRA Vs M V LABITRA CARMEL IMO NO. 8739114 AND 3 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court ruled that a plaintiff with a decree for debt and interest is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds of other vessels owned by the same defendant company. The court affirmed that a plaintiff can claim sale proceeds of additional assets if the original vessel does not satisfy the decree, provided there are no competing claims against those proceeds. The plaintiff’s application to recover the remaining amount from the sale proceeds of the vessels was granted.
WP/8987/2025
Parties: OM BHAGWAN SHINDE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JUSTICE ASHWIN DAMODAR BHOBE
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court ruled that petitioners admitted to nursing courses without meeting educational qualifications had their admissions canceled. The court emphasized that allowing ineligible students to continue in higher years did not justify the petitioners’ illegal admissions, which undermined the integrity of the nursing programs and denied eligible candidates opportunities. The court ordered authorities to take action against the colleges for these admissions and mandated the return of fees to the petitioners, along with compensation for the loss of an academic year.
CARAP/389/2024
Parties: M/S MUKESH PATEL AND OTHERS Vs PANT NAGAR GANESH KRUPA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court ruled that Avvad Spaces LLP, not a signatory to the Development Agreement with Mukesh Patel and the Pant Nagar Ganesh Krupa Cooperative Housing Society, cannot be deemed a ‘veritable party’ in the arbitration proceedings initiated by Patel. Citing precedents from Cox and Kings and ASF Buildtech, the court found that Avvad’s role as a subsequent developer does not establish the necessary connections to the original parties. Consequently, while an arbitral tribunal was formed to resolve disputes between Patel and the merged Shubham Ambience Cooperative Housing Society, Avvad was excluded from the arbitration.
SA/442/2017
Parties: M.B. HATWALNE (DEAD) THR. LRS. MEENA WD/O M. HATWALNE (DEAD), MILIND S/O MADHUKAR HATWALNE AND ORS Vs YESHWANT B. HATWALNE (DEAD) THR. LRS. SMT. SHUBHANGI YESHWANT HATWALNE AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE R. W. JOSHI
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court ruled that the defendant’s license over the disputed plot did not become irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act. The defendant’s denial of being a licensee and failure to prove that construction was made under the license led to this conclusion. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that a license can only become irrevocable if the licensee demonstrates reliance on it for construction. Additionally, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim for compensation for the building, noting the absence of a counterclaim and supporting evidence.
WP/98/2025
Parties: KARAN S/O SANTOSH KOLTAKKE Vs THE S.T. CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, THR. MEMBER/SECRETARY, AMRAVATI AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR, JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning the validity of the petitioners’ caste claims under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes Act. The court quashed the respondents’ orders, directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue caste certificates within three weeks and instructing the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the claims without bias from prior decisions. This ruling addressed three writ petitions from siblings contesting the denial of Scheduled Tribe certificates.
APL/852/2020
Parties: NAVIN PRAKASHSINGH THAKUR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO PS AKOT FILE, AKOLA, TQ. AND DIST. AKOLA AND ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE, JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed an FIR against a landlord under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, ruling that the landlord cannot be vicariously liable for electricity theft committed by a tenant, who was the actual user of the meter. The court determined that the FIR did not establish any offense against the landlord, and continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.
FA/2638/2025
Parties: DEEPAK SHIVRAM PATARE Vs VIJAY SHIVRAM PATARE
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to deny the appellant’s probate application due to the failure to produce the original will dated 22.12.2004 and non-compliance with the Evidence Act for secondary evidence. The appellant did not establish grounds under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke the probate granted for the will dated 17.02.2005, which was properly executed and proved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
CARBPL/11975/2025
Parties: ZANMAI LABS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs NEXTGENDEV SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal’s order requiring Zanmai Labs Private Limited to provide security via bank guarantees or deposits to preserve the arbitration subject matter with brokers Bitcipher Labs LLP and Nextgendev Solutions Private Limited. The court determined that the Broker Agreement took precedence over the User Agreement, obligating Zanmai to ensure uninterrupted performance despite potential cyber-attacks. Zanmai’s claims of non-responsibility for cyber-attack impacts and its proposal to distribute losses among WazirX users were rejected as inconsistent with the contractual terms. The court found no error in the Tribunal’s discretion regarding interim measures.