Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“In matters of recruitment to services, interference to the process of recruitment when otherwise conducted in a transparent, fair and reasonable manner with no allegation of malafides cannot be gone into in the limited power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Continue reading
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The investigating agency must instead rely on independent and lawful methods to gather information rather than pressuring the accused to act against their constitutional safeguards. Insisting on custodial interrogation solely for self-incriminatory purposes is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Applying the ‘eye of the needle’ test, the Court has no hesitation in observing that the prima facie scrutiny of the facts of the present case, leads to a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable.”

Continue reading
Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Even if it is presumed that signing an agreement with an arbitration clause can be regarded as submission of a (non-existent) dispute to arbitration, it will not follow that as a matter of law, since there will be no implied authority to execute such a contract. All these are issues that will pose mixed questions of fact and law and will relate to the substance of existence rather than the form of existence, i.e., a written agreement.

Continue reading
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified by the prosecution with cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in the rigours of Section 37.”

Continue reading
Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Complaints/customer feedback on social media is an accepted mode of registering complaints against a service provider and the petitioner cannot adopt an ostrich policy in today’s time on the pretext that social media complaints do not deserve to be treated with seriousness.”

Continue reading