Can an FIR Disclosing a Cognizable Offence Be Quashed at the Pre-Investigation Stage on Factual Disputes? — Precedent Affirmed as Binding Authority

The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence involving vehicle particulars cannot be quashed under writ jurisdiction at the pre-investigation stage based on disputed factual contentions. The Court upheld existing precedent, providing binding authority for subordinate courts dealing with quashing petitions in similar contexts.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRLW/1361/2025 […]

Can Revisional Courts Reappreciate Evidence or Interfere with Concurrent Convictions under Section 379/34 IPC? Clarification and Reaffirmation of Limited Revisional Jurisdiction—Precedent Confirmed

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upholds the settled principle that revisional courts do not function as appellate courts and may interfere only to correct patent defect, error of law, or jurisdictional error in convictions under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent, providing binding authority within the state […]

When Can a Criminal Appeal Be Withdrawn as of Right? High Court of Jharkhand Reaffirms Procedural Principles on Voluntary Withdrawal (Binding Precedent)

The Jharkhand High Court confirmed that, with no objection from the State, an appellant may seek and receive leave to withdraw a pending criminal appeal at any stage. The ruling upholds established procedural law and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within Jharkhand on the process of appeal withdrawal.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Can Unsuccessful Candidates Challenge a Recruitment Selection Process After Participation by Alleging Non-Disclosure of Vacancies or Procedural Irregularities? — Precedent Affirmed by High Court

The High Court has reaffirmed that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot later challenge the process on grounds such as non-disclosure of vacancies or alleged errors in assessment. This judgment upholds established precedent, emphasizing that verbal promises and post-facto objections do not create enforceable recruitment rights. The precedent is binding on […]

Does an Administrative Authority’s Compliance with Court Directions in Pension Matters Remove the Need for Further Judicial Intervention? — Clarification of Execution Powers and Enforcement Procedures by Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that upon compliance with a prior judicial direction, execution proceedings may be disposed of with a reserved liberty to approach the court again for any surviving grievances. This judgment upholds and operationalizes established legal procedures regarding enforcement of pensionary benefits by government departments, and serves as binding authority for […]

Can a Purchaser from an Absolute Owner Move for Rejection of Partition Suit Plaints When the Property Is Not Joint Family Property? – Reaffirmation of Principles for Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

The Madras High Court upholds existing precedent that, for suits seeking partition, only co-sharers have locus standi, and where property is the absolute self-acquired property of a defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim partition as a Class-I heir of a deceased son. This judgment affirms the trial court’s rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 […]

Does Repeated Non-Compliance With Office Objections Justify Dismissal of Writ Appeals Under the Karnataka High Court Rules?

The Karnataka High Court reaffirms that persistent failure to remove office objections, despite repeated opportunities and imposition of costs, is valid ground for dismissal of appeals. The decision upholds established practice and serves as binding authority within Karnataka, providing clear procedural guidance for litigators.   Summary Category Data Case Name WA/1539/2023 of SMT MUNIYAMMA Vs […]

Can a Conviction Under the NDPS Act Be Sustained Solely on the Confession of a Co-Accused, and Without Strict Compliance of Section 42?

The Madras High Court holds that mere confession of a co-accused, without independent corroboration and strict statutory compliance—especially of procedural safeguards under Section 42 NDPS Act—cannot sustain a conviction. The Court explicitly affirms established Supreme Court precedent on the unreliability of co-accused confessions alone, while underscoring the heavy burden on prosecution in grave offences. This […]

Can Conviction Under the NDPS Act Be Sustained Solely on Co-accused Confession Without Independent Evidence or Strict Compliance with Statutory Procedure?

The Madras High Court held that conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained solely on the confession of a co-accused and absent strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the Act. The Court also held prosecution witnesses liable for compensation in case of proven false evidence. This judgment upholds Supreme Court […]

Can a Coparcener Secure Injunctive Relief to Prevent Sale of Ancestral Property Mortgaged by the Karta for Alleged Absence of Legal Necessity? — Reaffirmation of Manager’s Powers under Hindu Law

The Bombay High Court reaffirms that coparceners cannot restrain the Karta from alienating joint family property unless the lack of legal necessity or benefit to the estate is established. The decision upholds established precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in Maharashtra. Particularly relevant for property disputes involving joint Hindu family property and banking recovery […]

Can an Insurer Be Made Liable for Compensation in a Motor Accident Claim When Not Implicated During Trial, and What is the Extent of Its Interest Liability?

The Bombay High Court held that an insurance company, though not impleaded during the trial, can be directed to pay compensation if the vehicle was insured at the time of accident; however, liability for interest prior to insurer’s impleadment is shared equally with the owner owing to the owner’s negligence in not joining the insurer […]

Does Failure to Issue Proper Notice Before Passing a Quasi-Judicial Order Violate Principles of Natural Justice?

The court unequivocally held that passing an order without issuance and service of notice on the concerned party violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the order unsustainable. The judgment affirms well-settled law and acts as binding precedent for all similar administrative and quasi-judicial actions in the State of Odisha.   Summary Category Data Case […]