Can Possessors of Private Land Be Evicted Without Due Process? Gauhati High Court Reaffirms Mandatory Adherence to Legal Procedure

The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that eviction from private land—even if the possessors lack title—cannot be done without following the due process of law. The judgment clarifies that technical objections about association registration do not bar such petitions, and that preventive writ jurisdiction is available even on bona fide apprehension of rights violation. The […]

Is a Writ Petition Maintainable When Government Officials are Impleaded by Name Instead of Official Capacity?

The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that petitions naming government officers personally, rather than in their official capacity, are defective and not maintainable. The judgment upholds existing procedural requirements and serves as binding precedent for future writ petitions within Chhattisgarh, clarifying mandatory party description norms for all practitioners drafting writs against public officials.   Summary Category […]

Can New Grounds or Previously Overlooked Evidence Justify Review of a Judgment Dismissing a Writ Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC? – Precedential Limits Reaffirmed

The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms the settled principle that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, or other sufficient reasons—not to permit re-arguing the case or introducing new grounds. […]

Does An Unregistered Family Arrangement Require Registration to Be Enforceable in Partition/Rent-Share Disputes? — Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms Admissibility When Acted Upon

Unregistered family settlements, if acted upon by the parties, are admissible and enforceable as evidence of arrangement—even if not registered under the Registration Act, 1908—as long as they do not constitute partition, relinquishment, or transfer of title. This judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court upholds Supreme Court precedent and has binding effect within the state. […]

**Precedent Followed: High Court Reaffirms Apex Court’s Principles—Lawyers Must Assess Maintainability Before Filing Writ Petitions Against Financial Creditors.**

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd, writ petitions challenging private finance company actions are not maintainable; petition dismissed accordingly. This upholds the current legal position and is binding precedent for future challenges to recovery proceedings initiated by […]

Is the Minimum Wage Matrix Binding for Assessing Income of Deceased Skilled Workers in Motor Accident Claims?

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that when there is no direct proof of income, the applicable minimum wages matrix for skilled workers must be adopted for determining the deceased’s income in motor accident compensation claims. This judgment enhances clarity on the statutory adoption of minimum wages in such contexts and is binding on all […]

Does Non-Compliance with Statutory Safeguards in Seizure and Custody of Intoxicants Mandate Acquittal Under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act? — High Court Reaffirms Essential Procedural Safeguards as Binding Authority

If prosecution fails to demonstrate sealed custody, explain delays, or comply with Section 57(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, conviction cannot be sustained; reaffirmation of existing precedent with binding authority for subordinate courts on procedural lapses in excise prosecutions.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRR/984/2016 of Ishwari Bai Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh CNR […]

Can Writ Jurisdiction Be Invoked to Challenge Contract Cancellation and Blacklisting by Municipal Bodies When a Statutory Appeal Is Available? — Precedent on Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies

The High Court has reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists; petitions challenging contract cancellation, forfeiture, and blacklisting must first be addressed before the designated appellate authority under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. This judgment upholds existing precedent on alternate remedies for challenges in the public […]

Does Failure to File Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities Mandate Interference With Family Court Maintenance Orders? — High Court Affirms No Automatic Invalidation Absent Illegality

When Family Courts adjudicate maintenance claims without affidavits of assets/liabilities, the order will not be set aside unless the judgment shows patent illegality or infirmity. This judgment affirms compliance with Supreme Court guidelines is crucial, but not every procedural lapse warrants interference. It upholds precedent and will serve as binding authority for subordinate courts in […]

Can the High Court Direct Status Quo on Property Possession Pending Condonation of Delay Before DRAT Under SARFAESI Proceedings?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when an appeal is pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), and an application for condonation of delay is yet to be decided, it is appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo regarding possession until DRAT passes suitable orders. This order upholds the High Court’s power […]

Does Denial of Opportunity to Dispute a Structural Safety Report Violate Principles of Natural Justice in Demolition/Eviction Proceedings? – Precedential Clarification by Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that while failing to provide tenants an opportunity to contest a building safety report may be a procedural irregularity, practical considerations can allow courts to grant modified relief balancing competing equities. The judgment does not overrule existing law but affirms judicial discretion in fashioning remedies in demolition and eviction […]

Does the Principle of Natural Justice Require That Purchasers Be Heard Before Restoration of Temple Land?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that individuals who purchased temple land in alleged violation of administrative orders and injunctions are entitled to an opportunity of being heard before any court restores possession to the temple. The decision sets aside earlier directions for immediate restoration without hearing the vendees, and clarifies essential procedural safeguards […]