The High Court upholds that, in cases involving conviction under Section 304-A IPC, substantive sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone considering factors such as the age of the accused, prolonged litigation, and good conduct. This approach follows Supreme Court precedent (Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, 2022) and serves as […]
The High Court affirms that mere involvement in multiple FIRs is not independently sufficient to deny bail; bail must be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the FIR in question. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana, particularly in […]
The High Court reaffirmed that when dismissing a criminal quashing petition, referring to the reasoning and order in an identical matter heard and decided the same day is valid. This approach applies the existing legal position and does not create new law, but stands as a binding precedent within the court’s territorial jurisdiction for future […]
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms and clarifies that the judicial directions for pensionary benefits set by the Supreme Court in Balo Devi and by itself in Sunder Singh are not limited to Class-IV employees but are equally applicable to Class-III employees, as per its earlier ruling in Roop Lal; the judgment thus expands the […]
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that Class-IV employees, engaged as daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized thereafter, are to be deemed as retired at age 60 (not 58) for pension purposes, even if actually retired earlier; they are entitled to notional pay fixation — not actual salary — from the date of actual […]
When a writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and without adjudicating any question of law or fact, such an order does **not** establish new law, clarify or reaffirm a substantive legal principle, nor create binding precedent. This judgment upholds existing procedural practice and has no precedential value for future cases. Useful as procedural context; not […]
Writ petitions under Articles 226/227 challenging Waqf Tribunal orders are maintainable; the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial. The Orissa High Court follows and applies the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, confirming the binding nature of High Court’s supervisory powers and clarifying procedural aspects for such petitions within […]
The Calcutta High Court affirms that, in arbitration proceedings, counter claims cannot ordinarily be introduced after framing of issues; only in exceptional cases may such claims be permitted until commencement of evidence. This judgment applies the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to arbitration and upholds the existing procedural balance, providing binding authority within West Bengal and persuasive […]
The court confirms that once disputes between parties in a writ petition are settled and recorded, the petition may be disposed of without further order. This approach upholds established practice in constitutional writ jurisdiction and serves as binding authority for similar future scenarios in the Calcutta High Court and subordinate courts. Summary Category Data […]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterates that the quantum of sentence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act—where no minimum is prescribed—can be reduced considering prolonged delay in trial, the convict’s conduct, and other mitigating factors. Maintains established precedent and serves as binding authority within its jurisdiction, providing practical sentencing guidance for trial courts […]
A writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner has died and no representation or substitution is made; such dismissal is procedural, does not decide the merits, and holds no precedential value. The judgment upholds existing procedural law and is not binding as authority on substantive law. Summary Category Data Case Name CWP/18039/2000 […]
The High Court reaffirms that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the person whose name is recorded as the “registered owner” is liable to compensate accident victims, even if the vehicle was driven by another without their consent, and even when not insured. This judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority for […]