Can Bail Be Granted in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Based Solely on Co-Accused Disclosure and Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention?

Punjab & Haryana High Court clarifies that, notwithstanding Section 37 NDPS Act’s rigour, regular bail may be granted when implication is solely on co-accused’s disclosure uncorroborated by other evidence, and trial delays result in prolonged incarceration—harmonising statutory embargo with constitutional rights. Affirmative precedent; can be relied upon in regular bail applications in similar cases.   […]

Does Withdrawal of Main Suit Render Pending Revision Against Interlocutory Order Infructuous?

The court reaffirmed that once the main suit is withdrawn, any pending revision challenging an interlocutory order in that suit becomes infructuous. This decision upholds settled precedent within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts under its purview.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Can Anticipatory Bail Be Granted Under Section 482 of BNSS When the Only Evidence Against the Accused Is a Co-accused’s Disclosure Statement in NDPS Cases? — Authority Reaffirmed and Clarified by the Punjab & Haryana High Court

The High Court clarified that pre-arrest bail can be considered where the only evidence against the accused is a disclosure statement of a co-accused — consistent with established Supreme Court precedent and binding for subordinate courts in NDPS cases. The order is expressly not a blanket bail and is subject to compliance with statutory conditions. […]

Does Non-filing of Written Statement Before an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act in Non-Commercial Suits Mandate Striking Off Defence?—High Court Clarifies Directory Nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for Non-Commercial Disputes

Punjab & Haryana High Court holds that the mandatory time-limits for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory in non-commercial suits, not fatal. The Court overrules prior reliance on SCG Contracts (which applies only to commercial suits), remitting the matter for trial. The judgment is a binding precedent for all subordinate […]

Does a Purely Civil Family Property Dispute Warrant Judicial Intervention Under Writ Jurisdiction When Settlement Has Been Reached?

Where the parties are full-blood brothers disputing residential property and have reached an amicable settlement, the High Court reaffirms that writ petitions are not the appropriate mechanism for resolution; directs parties to seek civil remedies. The judgment affirms and applies existing precedent, confirming the non-interference of writ courts in private civil disputes. Precedent value: binding […]

Can a Sub-Registrar Lawfully Refuse to Receive a Document for Registration Without Written Reasons? – Clarification and Reinforcement of Procedure under the Registration Act, 1908

The Orissa High Court clarifies and reiterates that a Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive a document presented for registration; written reasons are mandatory if refusal is made under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. The judgment upholds existing legal precedent, is binding on subordinate authorities, and has immediate effect for property registrations in […]

Does Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Clarify the Principles Governing Anticipatory Bail and Its Conditions?

Clarification on Anticipatory Bail Principles under BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds detailed conditional bail, affirms non-blanket protection, and recognizes powers analogous to the erstwhile Section 438 CrPC. Precedential value: binding within the state, persuasive elsewhere.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRM-M/22167/2025 of ALOK RANGI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB CNR PHHC010633332025 […]

Does Interim Anticipatory Bail Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Become Absolute Upon Joining Investigation? High Court Reiterates Conditions and Limits

The High Court clarifies that interim anticipatory bail granted under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, becomes absolute on fulfillment of conditions like joining investigation, but protection is case-specific, non-blanket, and subject to compliance with statutory conditions; this reaffirms prevailing precedent applicable to Excise Act offences.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Does Settlement Before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre Mandate Disposal of Pending Writ Petitions in Terms Thereof?—Binding Authority from Punjab & Haryana High Court

The High Court holds that when parties to a writ petition arrive at a mediated settlement formally recorded before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the writ petition is to be disposed in terms of the settlement. This judgment upholds the practice of judicial disposal post-mediation and serves as binding authority for similar scenarios in civil […]

Can Future Prospects Be Awarded in Motor Accident Compensation When the Deceased Held a Permanent Job? Clarification and Quantum Determination by the High Court

The court reaffirmed that when the deceased held a permanent job, future prospects (here, 50%) must be added to the annual income for compensation calculation, though quantum for heads like consortium may be tailored depending on the accident date. The decision upholds prior precedent and provides authoritative guidance for compensation calculation in motor accident claims. […]

When Is Delay in Filing Civil Appeals Considered Inexcusable? Calcutta High Court Reaffirms the Standard for Condonation Applications

Delay without satisfactory explanation will not be condoned; High Court upholds existing precedent on the importance of quality of explanation over mere length of delay. Decision binds subordinate courts within West Bengal; reinforces stringent limitation norms for civil appellate matters.   Summary Category Data Case Name FAT/242/2025 of SANKAR NARAYAN DEU AND ORS Vs SRIMATI […]

Does the Burden of Proof of Termination of Tenancy or Dispossession Lie on the Party Alleging Cessation of Jural Relationship?

The Calcutta High Court reiterates that in disputes relating to tenancy or license, the party asserting that the jural relationship has ended, or that the tenant/licensee has been dispossessed, bears the burden of proof. This judgment upholds established precedent, affirms interim relief jurisprudence, and serves as binding authority within West Bengal, especially regarding ad interim […]