List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Recent Judgments
Important Judgments of Allahabad High Court 2024
01-Jan-2025
There were several important judgements passed by the Allahabad High Court. Some of them are below:
Sumit & Anr v. State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that cognizance of the offence under Section 174 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings, and the Police have no power to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) in such cases.
Diwakar Singh v. State of U.P
- The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the provisions of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Magistrate cannot compel reappearances of prosecution witnesses already examined unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
Sunil Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that license conditions are not violated when pistols are fired for the purpose of self defence.
Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna
- The Allahabad High Court has held that once cruelty is found to be committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise.
Km. Ankita Devi v. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya
- The Allahabad High Court has highlighted the difference between void and voidable marriage and held that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.
M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the Superior Court.
Dhirendra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere use of abusive language or being discourteous or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another.
- The single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held that a person summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot seek discharge under Section 227 of CrPC.
Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors.
- The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors., has held that the objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award.
Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors. has held that the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.
M/S Genius Ortho Industries v Union of India and Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands.
Raksha and Anr v State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.
Vishwanath v State of UP and Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) doesn’t bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court.
Omprakash v State of UP Thru Prin Secy Home, Lko And Anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.
Smt Preeti Arora v Subhash Chandra Arora and Another
- The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that adult head of a Hindu family does not require permission of court to dispose an undivided interest of Hindu minor.
Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P.
- The Allahabad High Court has held that begar is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Rana Pratap Singh v Neetu Singh & Ors,
- The Allahabad High Court has held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.
Aman @ Vansh v State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that by falsely depicting the victim as a minor the accused persons are wrongly implicated under the stringent regime of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
Akhtari Khatoon v State of UP and Ors.
- The bench of Justice J J Munir held that “If on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule”.
Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh & Ors v State of UP and Anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that an act intentional insult or intimidation to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) only if it is committed in public view.
Saleem Ahmad v State of UP and Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 (DV Act) are of a civil nature.
Ankit Singh and 3 Others v State of UP and Another.
- Recently a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan held that it is surprising that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) having been enacted in the year 1961 and more than 62 years have passed, the progress with regard to eradication of practice of dowry has been slow.
- The Allahabad High Court directed that the illegal practice of dowry is required to be addressed.
Miss Olive Rohit and Others v. State of UP and Others
- Allahabad High Court highlighted the contentious issue of alleged coercion in religious conversions and sexual abuse.
- The court orders that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners, and they will not be arrested in pursuance of the instant FIR.
Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union of India Through Home Secy. and others
- The Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner by merely putting allegations of irregularity in disciplinary proceedings cannot escape his responsibility to show that prejudice has been caused to him by the same.
Dheeraj v. Smt. Chetna Goswami
- The Allahabad High Court, under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the concept of “ordinary residence” in relation to a minor does not include temporary living arrangements, even if the minor has temporarily relocated for educational reasons at the time of the custody petition under the Act.
- Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 specifies that petitions regarding the guardianship of a minor’s person must be filed in the District Court having authority over the area where the minor typically resides. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 define the jurisdiction in cases concerning the minor’s property.
Siddha Nath Pathak and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh
- A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan held that the suspension of an advocate’s license to practice law would cause an injury of irreparable character, as it would affect his clientage/profession as well as reputation.
Union of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors /Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers
- The Allahabad High Court held that the scope of interference in appellate proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) stands bracketed to the grounds which are available under Section 34 of A&C Act for challenging the award.
Commissioner Commercial Tax v Pan Parag India Limited
- A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf noted that in franchise agreements, the franchisor retains control and can license the same rights to multiple franchisees, reinforcing the licensing framework rather than a full transfer.
Naziya Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that no one can impose restrictions on an adult from going anywhere or staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will as this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Prem Chand v. State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that Kshetriya Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) as there is no statute regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.
Pradum Singh v. State of U P
- A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed that it is well-settled that to constitute an offense of rape, complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of the hymen is not necessary.
Roshan Lal Alias v. State of U.P. and Another
- The Allahabad High Court gained attention due to the Allahabad High Court’s decision to set aside a summoning order issued by a magistrate in Azamgarh.
- The High Court found that the magistrate had mechanically used a pre-printed proforma, failing to apply judicial mind while issuing the order.
Ruksar v. State of UP & Ors
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (Act of 2021) will fail to achieve its intended purpose, if there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage.
Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P.
- The court observes the distinction between individual freedom of religious expression and the collective act of proselytization.
- The court states that while individuals have the right to freely choose and practice their religion under the Constitution, they cannot convert others to their faith.
The Rammilan Bunkar v. State of U.P and Connected Appeals
- The court has held that mechanical addition of charge of Murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code 1860(IPC) is unsustainable in the cases already having charges related to Dowry death and Dowry related inhuman treatment.
Faiyaz Abbas v. State of U.P.
- A bench of Justice Abdul Moin held that that the property attached can only be that which belongs to the person absconding and not one in which he resides.
M/S Parthas Textiles and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
- The Allahabad High Court states change brought by Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which expands the methods for serving summons to companies.
Kailash v. State of UP Case
- A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal expressed concern that if the process of religious conversion continues, the majority population of the country could become a minority.
Dinesh Prasad v. State of U.P.
- A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai held that an employee who has been fully exonerated from the charges and reinstated is entitled to full pay for the period he was out of service.
Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Rani Singh
- The Allahabad High Court has held that to infer whether there is breakdown of marriage irretrievably on the ground that parties are not staying together for a long period should be made only by considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the marriage certificate having no mention of Saptapati is not a proof for the solemnization of marriage.
Sunil v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi held that where ocular evidence appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive assumes significance
Dhanush Vir Singh v. Dr. Ila Sharma.
- A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that there is no provision whereby a decree against a company can be executed against the employee/representative/ director of a firm.
Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others
- The Allahabad High Court ruled that oral gifts under Mohammedan Law, which are subsequently documented in writing but remain unregistered, are not subject to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Dr. Rajesh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
- The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a couple. Accused had removed the deceased individual, who accompanied his mother to the hospital, and later died in a road accident. The court noted that a special investigation team had ruled out culpable homicide, and the couple’s appeals against the magisterial and sessions court decisions were upheld.
Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of U.P. and anr
- The Allahabad High Court has held that if the director signing the cheque has been summoned then it shall be presumed that the company has also been summoned.
Sinha Development Trust and Another v. State of UP and 15 Others
- The Allahabad High Court has held that Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment.
Sanjit Singh Salwan and 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and 2 Others
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the disputes related to trust as mentioned under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are not arbitrable in nature. The Court further added that Section 89 of CPC which states the provisions regarding outside the court settlement shall not have overriding effect over Section 92 of CPC.
Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta
- The Allahabad High Court ruled that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear tenant suits for perpetual injunction against landlords regarding eviction, stating this is not barred by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
- The court observed the dismissal of a tenant’s suit by the Civil Judge of Rae Bareli, which was challenged by the petitioner after his revision was also rejected.
Avani Pandey v. Directorate General of Medical Education And Training Thru Director General Lucknow and Another
- A bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that great grandchild is not a ‘dependent’ of freedom fighters.
- The High Court answered the question raised here: “Whether great granddaughter of freedom fighters is also to be granted benefit as being dependent of freedom fighter as per Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993 ?
- Accordingly, the Court held that in this case as well the great grand daughter shall not be included within the ambit of ‘dependents.
X v. Y
- The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (HMA) the phrase “material fact” includes any fact which is necessary for obtaining consent for marriage if concealed then it can be a ground to declare a marriage voidable.
Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi
- A bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh held that merely because the daughter-in-law was not living in the matrimonial home this would not disentitle her from maintenance.
Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
- The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a 21-year separation, compounded by criminal prosecution and harsh words, demonstrates an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The court observed that the lack of effort to reconcile and the pursuit of criminal charges only after divorce proceedings indicate that the marriage cannot be retrieved.
X v. Y
- The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that Hindu marriages, is based on sacramental principles, cannot be dissolved like contracts. This decision came while allowing a woman’s appeal against a family court’s ruling that had dissolved her marriage based solely on her husband’s request.
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the Administrative Tribunals are the substitutes for the Civil Court and has the same powers as of the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Read More
Adarsh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another
- A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held that even if the applicant and the deceased were residing as husband and wife the provisions under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC shall be invoked.
Dr Brij Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the Police cannot investigate under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT) and only the Appropriate authority have the jurisdiction to take the cognizance of such cases.
Sangeeta Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others
- The Allahabad High Court has held that a second First Information Report (FIR) is permissible when it has different versions of discoveries and evidence found in the same case for which the first FIR was filed.
Kanika Dhingra v. State of U.P
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the court may deny bail if the offence is an economic offence affecting public at large and a woman holding an influential position cannot be given benefit of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Section 437 of CrPC is now covered under Section 480 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Jayantri Prasad v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir, Pratapgarh Thru Ram Shiromani Pandey and 2 others
- A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction that is District Judge and not any other Court.
Sangeeta Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another.
- A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that a daughter is obligated to maintain her mother.
- The Applicant daughter was also directed to discharge her responsibility towards her mother by paying at least 25% of the outstanding amount of medical expenses incurred on her mother admitted to the hospital. The Court also in this case advised both the parties to try to resolve the issue. In this respect the Court also referred to a Doha of Rahim and the teachings of Taittiriya Upanishad.
Vivek Nayak (Died) And Another v. The Arbitrator / Collector And 3 Others.
- A bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that the order cannot be challenged unless the parties are able to show that the order is patently illegal or arbitrary.
- The Court held that the bare perusal of the record shows that the order was passed after due consideration and detailed reasons have been assigned for not granting compensation as per the commercial rate. The Court held that if two views are possible and the Tribunal has taken one view on the basis of that order cannot be challenged unless the parties are able to show that the order is patently illegal.
XXX v. State of U.P Case
- The Allahabad High Court has held that the present case where the allegations were of sexual assault and molestation directing the police for making preliminary inquiry and relying on the police report in favor of the accused is neither desired nor lawful.
X v. Y
- A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that since the cause of action in both the petitions is different the same would not be barred by res judicata.
- The Court held that while some paragraphs in the second divorce petition were identical to the first, the second petition introduced additional grounds not present in the first petition.
- The Court observed that the new elements in the second petition are as follows: The second petition highlighted litigation costs and expenses paid to the wife. It mentioned a specific incident from 2020 involving physical and mental assault of the husband’s family members.
Nagendra Sharma And Another v. Court of Principal Judge Family Court Gonda
- A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held that provisions of CPC apply to proceedings before the Family Court.
- The Court perused Section 10 of FCA and held that the provision clearly provides that provisions of CPC shall apply to proceedings before the Family Court and the Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the powers of such court.
- Thus, the Court held that writ of prohibition cannot be issued in this case as the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan v. BSNL, New Delhi.
- A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a widowed daughter would be entitled to compassionate appointment.
- The Court held that the guidelines for Compassionate Appointment issued by the Government of India, Ministry Personnel Public Grievance and Pension states that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment is applicable to a ‘Dependent Family Member.’
- The Court held that a widowed daughter would be covered in the definition of daughter.
- Also, the Court added that if such widowed daughter was not dependent upon her father, then she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment under the guidelines.
Pawan Kumar Pandey v. Sudha.
- A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that mere existence of mental disorder of any degree is not sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.
- The Court in this case examined the divorce on the grounds of “cruelty” and “desertion”.
- The Court observed that there was willful desertion in this case as the respondent lived with the appellant only for few days and did not return to live with him for more than a decade.
- The above conduct of the appellant shows that the respondent has abandoned the relationship between herself and the appellant and there is an animus deserendi on the part of the wife which is sufficient to constitute desertion.
Recent Judgments
Important Judgments of Delhi High Court 2024
01-Jan-2025
There were several important judgements passed by the Delhi High Court. Some of them are below:
Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. Case
- The Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., has held that under the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (C0I), an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices during investigation.
- Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, like the applicant herein, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, like the applicant herein is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the COI
Neetu Grover v. Union of India & Ors.
- The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the HMA which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as sapindas, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.
Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited.
- Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that if a party does not mention prayer in the application presented under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it turns the application invalid.
- Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence
- The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P B Varale observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the case of delay in filing appeal from acquittal.
- “Under Section 378 of the new CrPC read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 though a limitation is prescribed, yet Section 29(2) of 1963 Act, does not exclude the application of Section 5”.
Read more
Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held once a party has filed the written statement, it forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act)
- Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the A& C Act once it has filed the written statement in a civil suit.
- The Court held that if a party neglects to submit an application under Section 8 of the A & C Act, within the timeframe allotted for filing the initial statement addressing the substance of the dispute, which typically includes a written statement in the context of a lawsuit, that party would relinquish its entitlement to apply under Section 8 the said Act.
- It was further held that the Court found no deficiency in the decision of the Commercial Court in rejecting the Appellant’s application.
Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors. Case
- The Delhi High Court has held that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
- A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the orders passed by tribunals are, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the COI. As against the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal, the aggrieved party, therefore, has the option to either invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the COI depending upon the nature of relief sought in the petition.
v. Y
- The Delhi High Court has held that a wife’s request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.
- A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that vindictiveness, vexation and intolerance are the foes of coherent comprehension. Though the aggrieved person is entitled and well within their rights to avail the remedy under laws, but, crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in this rabbit hole of criminal litigations. The bullets of unjustified accusations and complaints cause such fatal wounds, leading to unendurable mental and physical acrimony, making it impossible for the spouses to live together.
SS v. SR Case
- The Delhi High Court has held that father questioning the paternity of children and making unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affair against wife is an act of mental cruelty against the wife.
- Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna levelling of disgusting allegations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship, constitute grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental health of the spouse. Such scandalous, unsubstantiated aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the spouse and not even sparing the children, would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by disentitle the appellant from seeking divorce.
Delhi State Legal Services Authority v. Annwesha Deb
- Delhi High Court has held that an advocate empanelled with a legal services authority is not an employee and, therefore, is not entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- A Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Saurabh Banerjee observed that an advocate empanelled with a legal services authority is not an ‘employee’ and, therefore, is not entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- It was further held there cannot be a comparison between an advocate who continues to act as such and an employee who is appointed as per the recruitment rules and the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the benefits of the Act to the respondent, more particularly, given the nature of her appointment.
Gulshan Kumar & Anr. v. Nidhi Kashyap
- High Court has held tha Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that DV Act is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or social background. The same was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of domestic violence in domestic relationships.
Veerpal @ Titu v. State.
- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta acquitted the accused of case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) and held that “In absence of foundational fact not being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reliance placed upon presumption under Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act by learned Trial Court to base conviction, appears to be misplaced.
Soukin v. The NCT State New Delhi
- Delhi High Court has held that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace.
- Justice Amit Mahajan observed that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favors from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma.
Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the convict is not entitled to grant of parole, on grounds of procreation or maintaining conjugal relationships with his live-in partner, when he already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock.
- It was also observed that granting parole on the grounds to have a child or to maintain conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, where the convict already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock, would set a harmful precedent.
M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd v. M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd
- The case adjudged by the bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh relates to Sections 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
- The court considered various judgments from other High Courts on whether the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be extended under Section 29A (5) even after its expiry.
- The court held that it is empowered to extend the mandate even after its expiry, given the expression “prior to or after expiry of the period so specified” used in Section 29A (4).
M/S Krish Overseas v. Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.
- The bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that in view Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year
- The Court further clarified that this order would be without prejudice to any other order of provisional attachment issued by either the respondents or any other authority communicated to the HDFC Bank.
Union of India v. Ram Gopal Dixit
- The Delhi High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission (CIC) over the utilization of funds under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) has garnered attention.
- Justice Subramonium Prasad observation that the Central Information Commission (CIC) lacks jurisdiction to remark on the utilization of funds by Members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
Independent News Service Private Limited & Anr v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors
- The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, protecting his personality rights against unauthorized use of the “Baap Ki Adalat” trademark and India TV logo.
- The Court restrained Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, who was using the name “Jhandiya TV,” from utilizing Sharma’s photograph, video, or name in any manner that could violate his personality rights.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors
- The Delhi High Court recently indicated that a single judge may have made a prima facie error by declining to provide interim relief to Forest Essentials, an Ayurvedic cosmetics company, in a trademark conflict with Baby Forest, a company specializing in Ayurvedic baby care products
- The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, addressed the Prima facie, finding that the learned Single Judge has erred in its interpretation of the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’to entail persistence of confusion till a stage that the transaction is consummated.
CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General
- The Delhi High Court held that the reason of rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium of the recommendation of High Court collegium for the elevation of Judges to High Court will not be in the good interest of the judges whose names have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr.
- The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS).
- Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that despite the husband’s petition being filed after July 1, 2023, under the BNSS, it would be treated under CrPC provisions due to ongoing proceedings.
- The decision followed a settlement between the parties, mediated through family court, leading to the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and transfer of property as per settlement terms, thereby rendering the FIR unnecessary and quashed.
Dell International India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze and Ors.
- A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
Court on Its Own Motion v. State of NCT of Delhi
- A bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that “In such cases of sexual assault, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on “bone age ossification report”, the upper age given in “reference range‟ be considered as age of the victim”
M/S KTC India Pvt. Ltd v. Randhir Brar & Ors
- A bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the subsequent shareholders here cannot be treated as a consortium or partnership.
Trans Engineers Private Limited v.Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited
- A bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that High Court can intervene if an award is based on fundamental misinterpretation of evidence or contractual terms.
NCT Of Delhi v. Puran Singh
- The Delhi High Court has held that an FIR to be registered against the Police whenever an allegedly fake encounter is reported.
Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi
- the Delhi High Court has held that the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO) are not restricted to male offenders only.
A v. B
- The Delhi High Court has held that a major son shall be entitled for maintenance till the time he completes his education and becomes financially independent.
Maruti Traders v. Itron India Pvt Ltd
- The Delhi High Court has held that terms of the contract will supersede the principle of equity and fairness in commercial matters.
Hosana Consumer Limited v. RSM General Trading LLC
- A bench of Justice C. Hari Prasad held that the court does possess the power to grant an anti-enforcement injunction where the foreign proceedings are violative of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract.
Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others
- The Delhi High Court has held that no case can be registered against an unknown official without a previous sanction of the competent authority as per Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC).
X and Ors. v The State and Anr
- The Delhi High Court has held that maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) is not linked with the ability or inability of the wife to maintain herself unlike Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr.
- A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that a criminal conviction is necessary to establish “moral turpitude” for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This decision upheld a Single Judge’s ruling regarding an employee of Punjab National Bank, states a case that without such a conviction, the Bank’s forfeiture of gratuity was unjustified.
M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr.
- The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the subsequent cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration due to the SCN lacking specific details. The court ruled that the SCN was too vague and did not provide intelligible reasons for the cancellation, thus violating procedural fairness requirements. This decision emphasizes the need for clear and specific reasons in legal notices for GST registration issues.
Director General, Project Varsha Ministry of Defence (Navy), Union of India, New Delhi v. M/S Navayuga-van Oord Jv
- The Delhi High Court ruled that documents classified as “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal. This decision followed a plea from the Director General of Project Varsha, who opposed the submission of sensitive documents during arbitration with M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV over a construction contract, citing national security concerns.
Anand Gupta & Anr. v. M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr
- The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This decision clarifies that such orders can be executed like decrees, ensuring they hold the same legal weight for enforcement purposes.
Abhinav Jindal HUF v. ITO.
- Other Laws Act, 2020 (TOLA) authorization allows the competent authority to act within an extended time frame but does not change the approval process stated in Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under Section 151, notices under Section 148 cannot be issued after four years without the Commissioner’s approval.
- The court found that if a notice is issued beyond this period, it does not comply with the necessary approval requirements.
Union of India & Ors v. Jagdish Singh & Ors.
- A Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain laid down that an Official memorandum cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Pauline Nalwoga v. Customs.
- A Single bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that “Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1950, requires options to be given to the person being searched; in fact an affirmative option is to be exercised for the search being conducted before the nearest gazetted Officer/Magistrate. Having provided a pre-typed proforma, with the less desirable option and getting it endorsed by the signatures of the person being searched, that too in the heat of the moment of the raid/ seizure, is a practice which is to be deprecated.”
Rakesh Khanna v. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the Consumer Commission has the power to issue arrest warrant against the director of the company to hold the company accountable for its non-compliance.
X v. Y
- The Delhi High Court has held that the orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act, 1890 (G & W Act) would be appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (FC Act).
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd.
- A bench of Justice C Hari Prasad dismissed the petition seeking termination of mandate of arbitrator under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act).
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others
- The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad states the critical principle of judicial noninterference in both domestic and international arbitration. The petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
ABC v. State & Anr
- A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that right to be forgotten is a part of right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Court on its Own Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has issued directions that have been issued in pursuance of ensuring proper environmental standards and public health safety in the NCT of Delhi.
Arunchalam P. v. Director General CISF
- The Delhi High Court has held that the Doctrine of Equality shall be applied to the punishments across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs.