Does Failure to File Provident Fund Returns Constitute a Continuing Offence or is It Barred by Limitation? Calcutta High Court Reaffirms Bar Under Section 468 CrPC

The Calcutta High Court holds that non-filing of returns under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme is not a continuing offence, reaffirms that prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC in such cases, and quashes related proceedings; this decision follows existing precedent and carries binding authority for subordinate courts.   Summary Category […]

Does an Administrative Order Deleting Names from Revenue Records Without Explicitly Summoning Additional Documents Violate Principles of Natural Justice Where Prior Hearing and Consideration of Written Submissions Are Evident? — Precedential Clarity on Opportunities to be Heard in Revenue Record Corrections (Madras High Court, Binding Authority)

The Madras High Court reaffirms that, where parties are demonstrably heard and their statements and written submissions are considered, administrative orders correcting revenue records are not vitiated merely because specific documents were not explicitly called for during the inquiry; absent procedural infirmity, challenges must be raised in civil court. This ruling upholds established precedent and […]

Is a Retired Employee Entitled to Interest for Delayed Payment of Provident Fund and Other Terminal Benefits? Calcutta High Court Reaffirms Right and Specifies Interest Rate (Binding Authority)

The Court confirmed that employees are entitled to claim interest for delayed disbursal of terminal benefits from the date of superannuation to the actual date of payment. The judgment upholds and further clarifies existing precedent, specifically setting the applicable interest rates for such delays and the consequences of non-compliance. This ruling holds binding authority within […]

Does Non-Filing of Provident Fund Returns Constitute a Continuing Offence Under the EPF Act? Clarification on the Limitation Bar under Section 468 CrPC by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that failure to submit returns under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme is **not** a continuing offence. Consequently, prosecutions initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 of the CrPC are barred. This judgment upholds prior coordinate bench decisions and provides binding authority for similar cases concerning offences of […]

Can Authorities Override Contract Renewal Guidelines for Women Self Help Groups by Open Advertisement? Orissa High Court Reaffirms Binding Nature of Administrative Guidelines

The Orissa High Court held that the 2018 Guidelines governing the selection and renewal of contracts for Women Self Help Groups (WSHGs) supplying Take Home Ration (THR) are binding in the absence of statute, and that authorities cannot bypass these by issuing open advertisements for selection. The judgment upholds longstanding legal principles on the enforceability […]

Does a Letters Patent Appeal Survive Once Contempt Proceedings Have Been Closed? — Affirmation of the Principle That LPAs Become Infructuous If Underlying Contempt Is No Longer Pending

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed that Letters Patent Appeals (LPA) challenging orders passed in contempt matters become infructuous once the contempt proceedings themselves have been closed. This order upholds existing practice and clarifies the procedural position for all subordinate judiciary within its jurisdiction.   Summary Category Data Case Name LPA(MD)/2/2025 of […]

Can High Courts Direct Extension of Application Deadlines for Recruitment Examinations After Expiry, Based on Parity With Earlier Orders? – Precedent Upheld

The Calcutta High Court declined to extend the application deadline for the 2025 Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for a petitioner whose chance to apply had lapsed, distinguishing the facts from an earlier order that permitted a last-minute off-line application. The decision upholds the authority of statutory deadlines and clarifies that prior extensions granted in exceptional […]

Does a Writ Court Decide the Merits of Service-Related Claims or Only Direct Competent Authorities to Consider Representations?

The Calcutta High Court clarified that in writ petitions seeking service-related benefits (such as leave encashment), the court may direct the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations after affording an opportunity of hearing, without adjudicating on the merits itself. This judgment affirms existing procedural law and serves as binding precedent within its […]

Does Premature Termination of a Fixed-Term Contract Amount to Retrenchment Under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

The Calcutta High Court clarified that termination of a fixed-term employment contract in accordance with a specific contractual condition does not constitute “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court affirmed existing precedent, holding that artificial or successive fixed-term contracts—even if the work is of a permanent nature—do not invalidate the […]

Does Procedural Irregularity or Variance in Departmental Charges Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings Under Article 226? Clarification and Limits on Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters

The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that unless gross procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality is shown, minor procedural lapses or variance between the charge and imputation do not vitiate disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that a technical imperfection in framing charges, rectified by detailed imputations without prejudice to the employee, is not fatal to disciplinary enquiry. […]

Can Authorities Depart From Non-Statutory Guidelines When Renewing Government Contracts for Social Welfare Schemes? Reaffirmation That Administrative Discretion Is Circumscribed by Binding Guidelines and Procedures

The Orissa High Court clarified that in the absence of statutory provisions, duly issued non-statutory administrative guidelines—such as the 2018 SNP/THR Guidelines—have binding force, and authorities may not ignore or act contrary to such guidelines in the name of transparency or level playing field. The judgment reaffirms the binding nature of procedural guidelines in government […]

Can “Dowry Death” Presumption Under Section 113B Evidence Act Extend to All Relatives? Clarification on Applicability Limited to Specific Accused where Evidence Sustains—Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms Ingredient-Based Analysis on Section 304B IPC

The Jharkhand High Court clarifies that presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be automatically extended to all relatives of the deceased; only those against whom cogent evidence of cruelty or dowry demand soon before death exists may attract conviction under Section 304B IPC. The court upholds conviction of the […]