Does the Dismissal of a Revision Petition as Infructuous Set Any Legal Precedent on Merits?

The court confirmed that when a petition is dismissed as infructuous owing to events such as disposal of the main proceedings below, no legal question is decided and no new law is created or clarified; such orders hold no precedential value.   Summary Category Data Case Name CR/6896/2025 of KIRTI Vs HARMANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS […]

Does the Withdrawal of a Second Appeal After Settlement Create Any Legal Precedent or Affect the Substantive Rights of Parties? (Existing Precedent Reaffirmed—Order Notes Only Procedural Dismissal; No Substantive Ratio Decidendi)

The High Court reiterated that when an appeal is withdrawn upon private settlement, and the order merely records such withdrawal, no new legal principle is laid down and the dismissal operates only as a procedural closure. This decision does not create binding precedent, reaffirming established practice that withdrawal of an appeal by consent does not […]

Does a Second Appeal Lie When There Is No Substantial Question of Law? — Reaffirmation of Section 100 CPC Threshold and Fact-Finding Restraint

The Court once again holds that in the absence of any substantial question of law, no interference under Section 100 CPC is warranted; upholds existing precedent on the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact relating to unproven earnest money and unclear sale transaction—authoritatively binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and […]

Can a Candidate Who Ranks Lower Than the Notified Number of Vacancies Claim Appointment After a Selection Process? Calcutta High Court Reaffirms Law on Right to Appointment and Delay in Challenging Selection Results

The Calcutta High Court clarified that a candidate ranking below the notified number of vacancies (third against a single vacancy) cannot claim an appointment as of right, and unexplained delay in approaching the court also bars relief. This decision upholds the prevailing legal position on selection process outcomes and delay/laches, serving as binding authority for […]

Can a Candidate Ranked Below the Notified Vacancy Claim Appointment Solely on Success in Selection?

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a candidate ranked below the notified number of vacancies cannot claim appointment in public service purely on the ground of selection success. The judgment upholds established precedent and reinforces that unexplained delay in approaching the writ court is an additional bar to relief. This ruling provides binding authority […]

Does a Candidate Have a Right to Direct the Immediate Disclosure of Merit Lists and Individual Marks in PSC Recruitment? — Precedent Reaffirmed by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to direct the Public Service Commission to publish results or disclose marks when the merit list has already been published and the candidate did not qualify. This judgment upholds existing precedent and is a binding authority for recruitment litigation under State PSCs in West […]

Can Land Owners Seek Fresh Acquisition Proceedings and Compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act for Land Requisitioned Decades Ago Where No Award Was Made?

Calcutta High Court confirms that when land was requisitioned under repealed statutes but no acquisition award was made within the statutory period, the authority must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act (Act XXX of 2013) and pay just compensation and rent for the entire period of state use. Upholds and applies prior coordinate […]

Can Delay in Filing Probate Appeals Be Condoned When Delay is Due to Litigant’s Ignorance and Financial Constraints, Especially in Uncontested Matters? – Calcutta High Court Clarifies Precedent for Granting Condonation in Probate Proceedings

The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that in probate matters, especially those that are uncontested, courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays caused by lack of legal knowledge and financial incapacity of litigants. The judgment upholds the principle that procedural lapses by a legatee or executor should not preclude fulfillment of the testator’s last […]

Can Additions Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act Be Made When the Identity and Source of Share Applicants Are Established? — Calcutta High Court Upholds Precedent

Clarifying the application of Section 68 to share premium transactions, the Calcutta High Court affirmed that when the identity of share applicants and the source of funds are sufficiently explained and verified, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. This judgment upholds prior precedent and will serve as binding authority within West Bengal, especially for […]

Is Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeals to Be Leniently Condoned on Sufficient Explanation? Reaffirmation of Liberal Interpretation of Condonation in Tax Matters

The Calcutta High Court emphasizes that appellate authorities must adopt a lenient approach when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing tax appeals, provided a sufficient explanation is furnished. This judgment upholds the established legal principle, reaffirming the duty to weigh condonation applications liberally, particularly when delay results from a reasonable cause beyond the […]

When Can an Appellate Court Dismiss a Second Appeal for Default? — Precedent for Non-Prosecution Dismissals Upheld

The High Court reaffirmed that non-appearance by the appellant and apparent lack of interest justify dismissal of a second appeal in default. This approach continues the established legal practice, offering clear guidance for similar future cases involving non-prosecution in civil appeals.   Summary Category Data Case Name RSA/452/2023 of BOOTA RAM Vs BALKAR SINGH SINCE […]

When Will a High Court Interfere in Appeal Against Acquittal? Clarification on “Possible View” Standard and Double Presumption of Innocence

The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that appellate interference with acquittal under Section 378 CrPC is justified only when the trial court’s view is not a “possible” one, strengthening the double presumption of innocence for acquitted accused. This judgment relies on established Supreme Court authority and clarifies binding standards for criminal appeals by the State.   […]