Sikarwar Legal Consultancy and Associates

Sikarwar Legal Consultancy and Associates Area of practice- Service, Criminal, Civil and Constitutional matters.

01/04/2026

The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and quashed the dismissal of an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, observing that a departmental enquiry stands vitiated if no oral enquiry is held and no witnesses are examined to prove the charges despite a denial by the delinquent employee.

Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. Case No: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2900 of 2020)

21/01/2026

Vague DIR under DV Act – Proceedings Quashed as Abuse of Process

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that where a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is vague, omnibus, and lacks the material particulars mandated under Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and where the proceedings appear to be initiated with mala fide intent or as a pressure tactic in matrimonial disputes, the continuation of such proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Relying upon the well-settled principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the High Court observed that criminal proceedings initiated without foundational facts and prima facie material, and motivated by ulterior considerations, deserve to be quashed at the threshold.

The Court emphasized that a DIR is not a mere formality and must contain specific allegations, dates, nature of domestic violence, and supporting material, as contemplated under Section 9 of the DV Act. In the absence of such particulars, the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue mechanically.

Accordingly, the Court held that allowing such proceedings to continue would result in misuse of the DV Act, thereby warranting interference to prevent harassment and miscarriage of justice.

Shri Prakash Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another

Case No.: WPCR No. 433 of 2025

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh

05/01/2026

The Patna High Court directed Patna University to regularize the services of several employees who had been working for decades on Class III and Class IV posts, holding that their appointments, though made without due advertisement and therefore procedurally flawed, were “irregular” rather than “illegal.”
The Court observed that the long and uninterrupted service of the employees could not be ignored and that the defects in the recruitment process did not go to the root of the appointments so as to render them void ab initio.

Madhwi Jha & Ors. v. The Patna University & Ors.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18289 of 2015.

03/01/2026

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Act, even when the main petition seeking interim measures is still pending before the Commercial Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam overruled the registry’s objection regarding maintainability and clarified that an ad-interim direction requiring the parties to maintain “status quo ante” amounts to “granting a measure” within the meaning of Section 9. Consequently, such an order squarely falls within the ambit of Section 37(1)(b) and is therefore appealable.

The Court categorically held that the appealability of an order does not depend on the final disposal of the Section 9 petition, and that even an ad-interim order affecting the rights of the parties is amenable to appellate scrutiny.

Case: Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Private Limited (and connected matter),
Commercial Court Appeal (SR) Nos. 53095 & 53096 of 2025.

02/01/2026

The Supreme Court has held that appellate courts cannot permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC unless it is founded on proper pleadings. The Court emphasized that, before allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage, it is imperative to examine whether the party had laid the necessary factual foundation for such evidence at the trial stage. Any evidence that is inconsistent with, or unrelated to, the pleadings is inadmissible and devoid of legal significance.

25/12/2025

Wife Leaving Matrimonial Home Due to Torture Does Not Amount to Desertion: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree

18/12/2025

The High Court held that the Rent Authority is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide eviction applications even in the absence of an executed tenancy agreement or prior intimation of tenancy particulars.

Canara Bank Branch Office and Anr. vs. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh (and connected matters) Case No: Matters Under Article 227 No. 626 of 2024, Writ-A Nos. 5714, 6623, 5411, 5413 of 2024; SCC Revision No. 44 of 2024

16/10/2025

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement (GPA/SA) does not convey ownership or title over immovable property and cannot be invoked to defeat a decree for specific performance arising from a prior, valid sale agreement that has culminated in a court decree and delivery of possession.

In a case where the appellants asserted ownership over the suit property on the basis of a GPA/SA executed in 2007—subsequent to the respondent’s earlier valid sale agreement of 2006—the Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed:

“We hold that the Special General Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2007 in favour of the first appellant does not confer or create any right, title, or interest in favour of the first appellant. Consequently, the lease executed by the first appellant in favour of the second appellant does not vest any right in the latter so as to object to or obstruct the ex*****on of the decree passed in favour of the first respondent/decree holder for delivery of possession of the ex*****on schedule property.”

FIRST APPEAL No. 492 of 2024
Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao (died) and ors. v. Kampa Bhaskara Rao and anr.

26/08/2025

The Allahabad High Court directed reconsideration of the family pension claim of a blind son of a deceased Railway Department employee, holding that the mere fact of his marriage could not disqualify him from entitlement to family pension. The writ petition challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, which had dismissed the petitioner’s claim. Referring to Explanation 1 to sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Ksh*tij Shailendra observed that the amended provision clearly stipulates that, while a married son ordinarily becomes ineligible for family pension, the same does not apply to a disabled son. Consequently, the petitioner’s married status, despite being a 100% disabled son, could not be a ground to deny him pension. The Court further noted that neither the Tribunal nor the Department had considered this legal position and had erroneously based their rejection solely on the Circular dated 15.01.2010.

Iftikhar Ali v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:137278-DB)

31/07/2025

The Supreme Court today (July 31) reiterated that in the absence of criminality, a civil and criminal case cannot be allowed to continue with respect to the same issue, as it would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting the Court's interference to quash the criminal proceedings.

“In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where a complainant had simultaneously pursued a civil suit for specific performance of a property agreement while lodging an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) against the landowners.

Setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which refused to quash criminal cases against the Appellants, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah noted that the civil disputes (like breach of contract or property disagreements) must be adjudicated through civil remedies, while criminal charges require proof of criminal intent from the inception of the transaction. The Court said the Appellants attempted to convert the civil dispute, giving it a criminal color.

Since the criminal proceedings were initiated against the Appellants only after an increase in the market value of the property, as stated by the Complainant in his statement, the court found that the Complainant failed to establish prima facie criminal intent at the time of the agreement.

Reference was drawn to the case of Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, where it was observed:

“Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.'”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the FIR registered against the Appellants stands quashed.

Cause Title: S. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Address

Jankipuram Extension
Lucknow
226031

Opening Hours

Monday 4:30pm - 11pm
Tuesday 4:30pm - 11pm
Wednesday 4:30pm - 11pm
Thursday 4:30pm - 11pm
Friday 4:30pm - 11pm
Saturday 2:30pm - 11pm
Sunday 10am - 11pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Sikarwar Legal Consultancy and Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category