Does Mere Apprehension of Threat Justify Transfer of Civil Suits Across States Under Section 24 CPC? Gauhati High Court Reaffirms Need for Objective Evidence

The Gauhati High Court declines transfer of a land-related civil suit from Nagaland to Assam, restating that transfer on grounds of threat requires real, reasonable, and substantiated apprehension. The judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent, affirms the primacy of situs of property, and introduces safeguards to ensure fair trial without disrupting territorial jurisdiction   Summary Category […]

Does Temporary Employment Without NOC Bar Appointment Under the Same Authority If Statutory Qualifications Are Met? — Law Clarified by Andhra Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has affirmed that a candidate’s failure to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) while pursuing higher studies during part-time, honorarium-based government engagement does not, by itself, constitute a disqualification for recruitment, provided statutory educational requirements under the DSC-2025 notification are met. This judgment upholds statutory eligibility as the decisive […]

Can Zirat Compensation Be Deducted from Market Value in Land Acquisition Awards? Gauhati High Court Clarifies Separate Assessment under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that compensation for zirat (standing crops, trees, improvements) must be assessed and awarded separately from the market value of land under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and cannot be deducted from the market value. This judgment partly modifies the Reference Court’s approach and reaffirms principles governing […]

Can Conviction for Rape Be Upheld on Sole Testimony of Victim When Material Surrounding Facts Are Inconsistent? Gauhati High Court Affirms Need for Corroboration in Sexual Offence Trials

Gauhati High Court holds that while the “core spectrum” of allegation may remain, inconsistencies in material particulars of the victim’s testimony necessitate corroboration for conviction in rape cases. The judgment applies Rai Sandeep and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram principles, and serves as binding authority for trial courts in Assam and persuasive precedent […]

Is Lump-Sum Compensation for Accidental Injury Claims Under the Motor Vehicles Act Justified Without Detailed Medical Bills? Gauhati High Court Reaffirms Requirement of “Real, Just and Reasonable” Compensation

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that even in the absence of all requisite medical bills and despite some treatment being attributable to pre-existing diseases, compensation for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges, and special diet must be granted under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This judgment upholds Supreme Court […]

Can Zirat (Surface) Compensation Be Deducted from Market Value in Land Acquisition Awards? Gauhati High Court Reaffirms Separate Assessment under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

The Gauhati High Court, in a judgment clarifying compensation calculation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has held that zirat (surface) compensation for trees, crops, and structures must not be deducted from the market value of the land awarded to the owner. This decision upholds the statutory separation under Section 23 of the Act and […]

Can High Courts Quash FIRs in Predominantly Civil Disputes Based on Settlement Between Parties? — Reaffirmation of Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC

High Court of Jharkhand reaffirms that in cases primarily civil in nature, FIRs and criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when parties have reached a full and complete settlement. Relies on Supreme Court precedent, upholds existing law, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within the State and strong persuasive value […]

Does Employment in a Statutory Canteen Automatically Create an Employer-Employee Relationship with the Principal Employer? – Jharkhand High Court Upholds Supreme Court Precedent

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that workers engaged by contractors in statutory canteens are considered employees of the principal establishment only for the purposes of compliance with the Factories Act, 1948, and not for all other purposes such as reinstatement or service benefits. The judgment strictly follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Balwant Rai […]

Does Dismissal in Default of a Writ Petition Operate as a Binding Precedent on the Substantive Legal Issues Raised Therein?

A High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution does not settle substantive legal questions and carries no precedential value on those issues; subsequent benches and practitioners cannot rely on it as binding authority for the principles or questions originally raised.   Summary Category Data Case Name WPMS/3164/2019 of DEEPAK KALRA Vs KUNAL KALRA […]

Can a Third Bail Application Be Entertained Absent New Grounds? Scope of Successive Bail Pleas Reaffirmed

The High Court of Uttarakhand has reaffirmed that a third bail application cannot be entertained unless new grounds are demonstrated, thereby upholding settled precedent and providing binding authority for the principle that successive bail applications must disclose fresh grounds.   Summary Category Data Case Name BA3/68/2025 of ARUN KUMAR Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CBI […]

Can an Affidavit/Undertaking by a Deceased Vicim Bar Claims by Dependents for Motor Accident Compensation? — Clarification and Affirmation of Dependents’ Statutory Right Under the Motor Vehicles Act

A High Court judgment reaffirms that an affidavit by the deceased relinquishing future compensation does not extinguish the statutory right of dependents to claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; awards may be enhanced at the appellate stage even without a cross-appeal. The decision follows established Supreme Court precedent and will serve as […]

Does Employment in a Statutory Canteen under a Contractor Confer Direct Employment Status with the Principal Employer? High Court Reaffirms Supreme Court Precedent and Restricts Employer-Employee Status to the Factories Act

The Jharkhand High Court, reaffirming established Supreme Court precedent, has held that workmen engaged through contractors in statutory canteens are deemed employees of the principal employer only for the limited purposes of the Factories Act, 1948—not for wider employment rights or reinstatement. This judgment follows and applies Balwant Rai Saluja (2014) and clarifies the scope […]