Where a writ petition is withdrawn by the petitioners before any judicial determination of legal issues, no law is declared and no precedential value is created. Such orders cannot be cited as authority for any proposition and do not alter or clarify the existing legal position. Summary Category Data Case Name CRWP/11608/2025 of RAMANDEEP […]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that once an anticipatory bail petition is dismissed on merits, a successive petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is not maintainable absent a material change in circumstances, following binding Supreme Court and High Court precedent. This judgment serves as binding authority […]
The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that when the counsel for the petitioner submits that the prior order has been complied with, and no contempt is alleged to subsist, the contempt application shall be dropped. This judgment upholds existing practice, confirming that such applications do not proceed further where compliance is conceded. It serves as binding […]
The Patna High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be directly invoked when the petitioner has not first sought redressal before the relevant administrative authority. The decision upholds the established principle of exhausting alternative remedies, reinforcing its application in public employment and administrative law settings. It stands as binding precedent […]
Delhi High Court holds that service rendered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs) is not to be reckoned for pensionary benefits or regularisation, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s authority in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera. The judgment sets aside conflicting Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decisions, clarifies the legal position on GDS status in government service, and […]
Where a petitioner conveys lack of interest in continuing with writ proceedings due to subsequent events, and the respondent raises no objection, the court may dispose of the petition without delving into merits. This judgment upholds the existing procedural precedent and affirms the non-adjudicative closure of cases in such circumstances. Practitioners should note this binding […]
The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal for non-prosecution, without examination of merits or substantial questions of law, does not create binding precedent nor clarify any legal position. Such orders hold no precedential value for future cases and do not impact underlying legal principles governing Section 100 CPC. Summary […]
The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirms that FIRs registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC may be quashed when all injured parties and the accused have genuinely settled their dispute. The judgment maintains the established principle that the primary object of law is to promote peace, and the continuance of criminal proceedings in such […]
A civil revision petition disposed of by order without recorded reasons does not create binding or persuasive precedent for future cases; practical value as legal authority is null when the court offers no reasoning or principle. Upholds settled principle that only reasoned decisions possess precedential value in civil procedure. Summary Category Data Case Name […]
The judgment reiterates that interference with acquittal is permissible only if the trial court’s decision is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if no reasonable view except guilt is possible; merely finding another possible view is insufficient. This ruling upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority for courts […]
The Calcutta High Court reiterates that guardians of students lack locus standi to invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction over school management issues unless their wards’ right to education is directly impacted; the decision upholds established precedent and provides binding authority for matters of maintainability in educational disputes. Summary Category Data Case Name WPA/20970/2025 of […]
The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of malice or arbitrariness; mere general grounds or comparisons with others do not justify interference. The decision upholds well-established principles, providing binding precedent for transfer matters within service law. Summary Category Data […]