General Information

  Bail Granted Despite Commercial Quantity of Ganja: P&H High Court’s Balanced Approach to Liberty Date: May 5, 2025 Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil Case: Ramesh v. State of Haryana , CRM-M-22787-2025 Case Background In a significant judgment balancing individual liberty and statutory rigour, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man arrested under the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 23.310 kg of ganja — a quantity just above the "commercial" threshold under the Act. The petitioner, in custody since December 28, 2023 , invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC , seeking regular bail on grounds of parity , delay in trial , marginal excess quantity , and lack of criminal antecedents . FIR Details & Allegations The FIR was registered at P.S. Sector 17/18, Gurugram , under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The police alleged: The petitio...

  When Justice Looks Beyond Quantity: A Thoughtful Bail Order in Davinder Singh’s Case By Advocate Prabal Bhandari In a significant bail ruling dated 5th May 2025 , the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Davinder Singh , who had been in jail for over a year and 23 days in connection with a drug case under the NDPS Act, 1985 . But this wasn’t just another routine bail matter. This case tells us a deeper story — one that balances the letter of the law with the spirit of justice . What Was the Case About? Davinder Singh was arrested along with three others while traveling in a car. During a police checkpoint, the car was stopped and searched. The police found 255 grams of intoxicant powder hidden near the dashboard of the car. The NDPS Act classifies such an amount as "commercial quantity" , which usually makes getting bail extremely difficult. However, Davinder was not driving the car. He was just sitting in the back seat. The Court's Re...

  P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu: A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Promotion and Service Rights In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on May 2, 2025, in the case of P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu (Civil Appeal No. 5835 of 2025), addressed the denial of a Police Constable's promotion to the post of Sub Inspector due to a punishment that was later set aside. This case highlights important aspects of service law, particularly concerning the rights of employees to be considered for promotion. The Case Background P. Sakthi, a Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Department, had been in service since 2002. In 2019, when the State issued a notification for promotion under the departmental quota, Sakthi was eligible for consideration. However, he was denied promotion on the grounds that he had been subjected to a punishment in 2005—specifically, a postponement of his next increment for one year without cumulative effect. While this punishment was in...

  Tractor-Trailer Accident Liabilities: A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling You Should Know About Accidents involving tractors and trailers can be incredibly complex when it comes to insurance claims. But a recent Supreme Court ruling has shed light on how the law handles tractor-trailer accident liabilities and insurance coverage. If you've ever wondered whether an insurer can avoid responsibility based on technicalities, this case is an eye-opener—and it could change the way you view insurance in accident claims. The Case That Set the Precedent In 2012, Nagarajappa tragically lost his life when the tractor he was riding, attached to a trailer, toppled over. His family—his wife and two minor daughters—filed for compensation, seeking a sum of Rs. 10 lakh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) ruled in their favor, awarding Rs. 9.5 lakh. But the story didn’t end there. The insurance company, The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company , argued that since only the tractor was ...

  Recent PF Judgment: A Big Relief for Employers Splitting Wages By Advocate Prabal Bhandari 07 May 2025 | Punjab & Haryana High Court Over the years, I've come across several cases where employers are pulled up by PF authorities for not including allowances like HRA or conveyance in “basic wages” for Provident Fund calculations. Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has put an important restatement on this issue — and it’s one that brings some much-needed clarity. In G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , the High Court clearly ruled: Allowances like House Rent, Conveyance, and Washing Allowance are not to be treated as part of basic wages for PF contributions under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. What was the issue? G4S, like many companies, split its employees’ wages into components — basic pay, HRA, conveyance, and washing allowance. The PF department objected, claiming this stru...