Does Denial of Police Permission for a Peaceful Foot March (Padayatra) by Advocates Violate Fundamental Rights? — High Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest with Reasonable Restrictions

The High Court clarified that police inaction or blanket denial of permission for a peaceful advocates’ padayatra, without reasonable justification, infringes Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court permitted the march with safeguards and affirmed the right to peaceful protest. This precedent upholds existing law on freedom of assembly and protest, with […]

Does Availability of an Effective Alternate Remedy under SARFAESI Bar High Court Jurisdiction Under Article 226? — Reaffirming the Principle And Its Precedential Value

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, has reaffirmed that writ petitions challenging actions taken under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when an effective alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal exists. This judgment upholds established precedent, reinforcing the bar on the extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such contexts, and is binding […]

Can a Contractor Rely on a Withdrawn Completion Certificate to Contest Disqualification from Tender Process? – High Court Reaffirms Limited Judicial Intervention in Administrative Tender Decisions

The High Court clarified that when a key document (such as a completion certificate) supporting a contractor’s eligibility is withdrawn by the competent authority after the writ petition is filed, the claim challenging disqualification from the tender process cannot survive. The judgment upholds existing precedent on judicial restraint in tender matters and is binding authority […]

Can New Grounds or Re-arguing the Case Constitute Valid Grounds for Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?

The Chhattisgarh High Court firmly clarified that review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is strictly limited; parties cannot use review to raise new grounds or re-argue matters already decided. This judgment upholds prior Supreme Court dicta and confirms binding precedent for civil courts, especially regarding the finality of judgments and […]

Is the Insurance Company Liable to First Pay Compensation for Pillion Rider Death Under a “Liability Only” Motor Policy, and Then Recover From Owner?—Precedent Reaffirmed and Clarified

The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that where a “Liability Only” insurance policy exists but no additional premium has been paid to cover a pillion rider, the insurer must first pay the compensation due to claimants and may then recover the sum from the vehicle owner/driver. This judgment follows Supreme Court precedent and reinforces its application […]

Can Review Petitions Be Used to Re-Argue a Case or Introduce New Grounds Beyond Order 47 Rule 1 CPC? – High Court Reaffirms Narrow Limits on Review Jurisdiction

The High Court reiterates that a review petition under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be entertained to re-argue matters, raise new grounds, or allow a “volte-face” by parties; review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered evidence. Existing Supreme Court precedent strictly limiting review […]

Must Insurers Pay Compensation to Pillion Riders Not Covered by Liability-Only Policies Before Seeking Recovery? – Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms “Pay and Recover” Principle

Court holds that when a pillion rider is not covered under a ‘Liability Only’ motor insurance policy due to no additional premium being paid, the insurer is still required to indemnify the claimant first and may then recover the amount from the vehicle owner; precedent status is binding within Chhattisgarh and affirms recent Supreme Court […]

Does Delay in Challenging Promotion Orders Bar Relief under Article 226? Chhattisgarh High Court Reaffirms Strict Timelines in Service Matters

The High Court of Chhattisgarh upholds existing precedent requiring prompt action in service disputes—especially in promotion or seniority challenges—categorically dismissing delayed petitions, even post-retirement, as barred by laches. This judgment reaffirms binding legal principles for all subordinate courts and solidifies the limited judicial discretion for entertaining stale service claims.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Can Appellate Courts Reduce Sentence to Period Already Undergone for Conviction Under Section 498-A IPC Where Significant Time Has Lapsed since the Incident?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms the discretion to modify sentence under Section 498-A IPC to the period already undergone, considering the passage of time, appellant’s conduct post-conviction, and other mitigating factors. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRA/89/2012 of […]

Whether Conviction Under NDPS Act Can Be Sustained Solely on Police Testimony When Independent Witnesses Turn Hostile? — Reaffirmation of Existing Precedent

The High Court reaffirmed that reliable police testimony can sustain conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act even if independent search and seizure witnesses turn hostile, provided statutory compliance is established. This upholds previous Supreme Court precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh in narcotics prosecutions.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Does a High Court Writ Petition Lie When an Appeal Against Contractor Licence Demotion is Pending? Clarifying Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies in Public Works Contractual Disputes

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that when a statutory appeal against contractor licence demotion is pending and heard, judicial intervention is limited to directing expeditious disposal of the appeal; the High Court will not ordinarily entertain the writ on merits before the alternate remedy is exhausted. This judgment reaffirms the principle of exhaustion of […]

Does Delay in Releasing Sanctioned Financial Assistance Under Government Scholarship Schemes Amount to Violation of Natural Justice: Clarification from Andhra Pradesh High Court?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that, once eligibility and sanction are undisputed, any unreasonable delay by authorities in disbursing financial assistance under the Videshi Vidyadharana Overseas Scholarship Scheme is untenable and amounts to irreparable prejudice. This ruling clearly upholds previous precedent and serves as binding authority within its jurisdiction for similarly placed beneficiaries […]