All High Courts
Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 19 - May 25, 2025
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197Nominal Index:Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V. Patel, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194Kisanlal Bairudas Jain vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 195Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 196The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Official Liquidator of...
Interim Directions Under Order 39 Rule I & II Of CPC Cannot Be Passed Against Non-Parties: J&K High Court
Reinforcing procedural rigour in civil litigation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that interim directions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be passed against a person who is not a party to the suit or appeal.“.. there can be no justification for grant of an interim injunction in respect of a claim which is not even projected by...
Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | 'Pauranic Illustrations Considered Hearsay Evidence': Allahabad HC Rejects Deity-Radharani's Impleadment Plea
The Allahabad High Court last week rejected an application moved by Deity-Shriji Radha Rani Vrishbhanu Kumari Vrindavani (Goddess Radha) seeking impleadment as a party to one of the 18 suits pertaining to the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute pending in the HC. The application, moved through next friend (Advocate Reena N Singh), claimed that the...
Uttarakhand High Court Expunges 'Adverse' Remarks In Transfer Order Concerning Son Of Nainital Rape Accused
The Uttarakhand High Court last week expunged the 'adverse' remarks made in the order transferring Rizwan Khan, an additional assistant engineer in PWD Uttarakhand, who happens to be son of Nainital rape accused.A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Ashish Naithani passed this order while hearing Khan's plea against an order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and...
WhatsApp Moves Allahabad HC Against SCDRC's Order Holding A Consumer Complaint To Be Maintainable Against It
Meta-owned instant messaging app WhatsApp has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging a recent order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (UPSCDRC) wherein it held that since WhatsApp provides 'services' to its 'users' in India, a consumer complaint against it would be maintainable. In its petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,...
Can't File Miscellaneous Application To Seek Interest On Gratuity After Disposal Of Writ Petition: Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Prakash Singh dismissed an application seeking interest on delayed gratuity, filed by a retired office assistant. The court held that once a writ petition is finally decided, a miscellaneous application seeking substantive reliefs like interest, is not maintainable. The court explained that gratuity and pension are statutory rights...
Fresh Cause Of Action Cannot Accrue U/S 18 Of Limitation Act If Liability Is Acknowledged After Expiry Of Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathanshankar has held that for a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 certain essential requirements must be met. Firstly, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. Secondly, it must pertain specifically to the liability concerning the right...
Departmental Proceedings After Compulsory Retirement, Since Not Under Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, Can't Continue : Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue...
Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 77Nominal IndexBatha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh...
Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Removal Of Livestock Body's Nominated Member, Says Collector Had No Express Power
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order by the single judge who had invoked the Doctrine of Pleasure to uphold removal of a nominated member from the General Body of the District Livestock Development Association, Ongole.Referring to the facts of the case, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:“…while the byelaws...
BSF Constable Losing Left Eye In Militant Encounter; Delhi High Court Rejects Union's Opposition , Grants Lump Sum Compensation
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central...
S.254(3) BNSS | Deferral Of Cross-Examination Must Be Sought Before Defence Strategy Is Exposed, Delay Undermines Purpose: J&K High Court
Shedding light on the Legislative intent behind the provision of allowing the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an application for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses must be filed as early as possible but in any case, before...