Every day, Indian courts decide cases that quietly reshape the rules ordinary people and businesses live by. Here’s a plain-English look at a few developments from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and other courts over the past few days — no legal jargon, just what happened and why it matters, especially if you’re in Punjab.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Cautions Senior Lawyer Over Remarks Made in Court
While hearing anticipatory bail pleas filed by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police accused of extortion and corruption, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found itself dealing with an unusual moment: a senior advocate’s remarks that the court felt suggested bias on the judge’s part. Justice Sanjay Vashisth chose not to take formal action, but placed on record that such conduct was “never expected” from a senior member of the Bar. The bail pleas themselves were deferred for further hearing in September, and the officer’s arrest was stayed in the meantime.
Anticipatory bail hearings can move quickly and get tense, and this case is a reminder that decorum before the bench matters as much as legal merit when a bail plea is at stake. If you or someone you know needs to apply for anticipatory bail, having calm, experienced representation can make a real difference — our Bail & Anticipatory Bail team regularly appears before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on exactly this kind of matter.
Source: LiveLaw
Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Told to Fix Responsibility When Pension Papers Are Delayed
In a case involving a retired Junior Engineer who waited more than a year for his gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund dues, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that government departments cannot blame an employee for delays that are actually the department’s own fault. Justice Sudeepti Sharma awarded the retiree 9% interest on the delayed amount and directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to fix personal responsibility on the “Heads of Office” who fail to process retirement papers on time — something the rules have required since 1953.
Thousands of government retirees across Punjab face exactly this kind of delay every year, often without realising that the law entitles them to interest on the amount owed, and that the fault usually lies with the department, not them. It’s a useful precedent for anyone stuck waiting on retiral dues.
Source: LiveLaw
Delhi High Court: An ED Money-Laundering Case Can Be Challenged Through a Regular Writ Petition
The Delhi High Court quashed a money-laundering case after finding that the Enforcement Directorate had tried to keep an old case alive by tacking on an unrelated, years-old FIR after the original case against the petitioners had already been closed for lack of evidence. Justice Anish Dayal held that people facing such a case don’t have to go through a separate adjudicating authority first — they can approach the High Court directly with a writ petition once the ED’s case no longer has a valid legal basis.
For businesses and individuals facing an ED enquiry or an ECIR, this is a reminder that such action isn’t beyond the reach of the courts, and that a case which has been improperly revived can be challenged directly rather than through a slower administrative process. Anyone dealing with a banking, financial or money-laundering dispute should get early legal advice — see our Banking & Financial Litigation page for how we can help.
Source: LiveLaw
Madras High Court: A Person’s Remarriage After Divorce Stays Valid Even If an Appeal Is Pending
The Madras High Court refused to undo a woman’s second marriage even though her ex-husband had filed an appeal against their divorce, because he had never obtained a stay on the divorce order itself. The court held that once a divorce decree is in force and unstayed, the person is legally free to remarry — and an appeal that is later dismissed for non-appearance cannot be used to unwind a marriage that has already taken place. The bench also suggested that the law should be updated to require anyone appealing a divorce to obtain a stay within two months, precisely to avoid this kind of confusion.
This is a useful reminder for anyone going through a divorce: filing an appeal alone does not freeze your right to remarry — what matters is whether a court has actually stayed the divorce order. If you’re unsure where you stand after a divorce order or a pending appeal, it’s worth getting this checked properly by a family law advocate. Our Divorce & Family Law team can advise on divorce, appeals and remarriage questions specific to your situation.
Source: LiveLaw
Have a question about a bail matter, a pending court case, or a family law issue of your own? Get in touch with Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates — we’re happy to have an initial conversation.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.