1. The Gram Panchayat’s Stolen Electricity for a Cricket Tournament

A local Gram Panchayat organized a cricket tournament on its grounds, but lacking a power source, they illegally tapped electricity directly from a nearby pole. The electricity company caught the theft, issued a supplementary bill, and eventually filed a civil suit for recovery when the Panchayat refused to pay. Astoundingly, the trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that the electricity company failed to definitively prove the tournament was officially organized by the Gram Panchayat. The frustrated company escalated the matter to the  Court, which has now issued notices to the local development officers.

2. The Double Maintenance Trap (Family Court vs. Execution Court)

A husband found himself caught between two competing maintenance orders after his wife secured one order under Section 125 of the CrPC and a second one under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. When the wife filed an execution application to collect the maintenance, the husband asked the court to “set off” the amounts so he wouldn’t be forced to pay twice for the exact same period. However, the wife’s lawyer presented a highly technical argument: an execution court has absolutely no legal power to modify, adjust, or set-off amounts from a completely separate DV Act order; it can only execute the specific order placed before it.

3. Stamp Duty Demanded 30 Years Later on an Amalgamation Scheme

A corporate entity faced a bizarre retrospective tax demand regarding a commercial property transaction. Back in 1993, a scheme of amalgamation was approved for a company—a transaction that, at the time, was legally exempt from stamp duty. Over the next two decades, the company’s assets legally changed hands three times. In 2023, when the current owner attempted to register a subsequent document, revenue authorities traced the property’s lineage back to 1993 and suddenly demanded stamp duty for the 30-year-old amalgamation, calculating the massive penalty based on today’s market value.

4. The “Canankerous” Purchaser Challenging a Builder’s BU Permission

A proposed property buyer entered into an agreement to sell with a builder in 2024. When the builder successfully obtained the mandatory Building Use (BU) permission, the purchaser dragged the builder to the  Court to get the BU permission cancelled, complaining that the building lacked fire safety, common parking, and solar heaters. The bench quickly exposed the absurdity of the litigation, bluntly asking what legal right a mere proposed purchaser has to question regulatory permissions granted to the owner. The court reminded the buyer that he walked into the transaction with “open eyes” and slammed the petition as “pure canankerous litigation”.

5. The Husband Caught with Two Passports After Swearing He Had None

A bitter domestic violence dispute exposed a husband’s blatant perjury. The wife filed an application to cancel her husband’s bail, revealing that during the legal proceedings, the husband had filed a sworn affidavit falsely declaring that he possessed no passport. However, the wife successfully uncovered and placed official records before the court proving that he wasn’t just lying about having no passport—he actually possessed two separate valid passports.

6. The “Gray Market” Phone That Triggered a 1.25 Crore Cyber Fraud Arrest

A man arrested by police investigating a massive 1.25 crore cyber fraud pleaded for bail, exposing the shockingly thin evidence against him. He argued before the court that he had absolutely no involvement in the financial scam and was only arrested because he had innocently purchased a second-hand mobile phone from the “gray market”. The investigating officer had found residual details of the cyber fraud on that specific device and arrested him solely based on his possession of the phone.

7. The Chamber Judge Who Dismissed a Suit Without Framing Issues

An advocate brought a shocking display of procedural irregularity to the  Court’s attention. A civil chamber judge had dismissed an entire civil suit at the very threshold under Order 15 of the CPC, justifying the dismissal by claiming the applicant failed to show any documentary evidence. The Court was stunned, noting that the trial judge threw out the case without ever framing the legal issues or giving the parties a legitimate chance to lead evidence. The Court labeled the trial judge’s approach “total cryptic and without application of mind” and immediately remanded the case.

8. Job Denied Over a Pending FIR Despite a Government Resolution

A candidate who successfully passed the selection process for a government post had his appointment arbitrarily blocked by authorities solely because a criminal FIR was pending against him. The candidate’s lawyer challenged this rejection, pointing out the state’s hypocrisy: the government’s own 2014 General Resolution explicitly mandates that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be used to automatically deny a selected candidate their appointment.

9. The Resignation That Was Accepted, Withdrawn, and Accepted Again

An employee’s career was thrown into chaos by an institution’s bizarre administrative flip-flopping. The employee had submitted his resignation, which was formally accepted by the management. Shortly after, he requested to withdraw his resignation, and the institution agreed, allowing him to rejoin his duties. Years later, the management suddenly changed its mind again, withdrew their permission, and retroactively accepted his original resignation. The Court severely questioned whether the management had any legal jurisdiction to execute such chaotic reversals.

10. The “No Vacancy” School Transfer Scam

A teacher applied for a transfer to a specific school but was denied because authorities claimed there was “no vacancy”. However, it was later exposed that the school did have a vacancy, which was wrongly and illegally given to another teacher as part of a larger scam. When the complaint committee finally caught the error and canceled the illegal transfer, the original teacher rushed to the Court, demanding he rightfully be given that newly-emptied spot.

11. Commercial Parking Sublet to Street Vendors

The manager of a cooperative housing and commercial society petitioned the court to intervene in a severe parking dispute. Commercial shop owners in the building were illegally modifying their designated parking areas. Instead of using the space for parking cars, the owners were subletting the area to third-party street vendors, “lorries,” and mobile ice cream vendors. This illegal subletting was creating massive bottlenecks and causing frequent daily friction between the residential occupants and the commercial shop owners.

12. The Dead Appellant and the Dead Advocate

The  Court had to formally dispose of a criminal appeal after a highly unusual realization: literally everyone involved on the appellant’s side had been dead for years. The sole appellant had passed away back in October 2018, and the advocate on record who filed the appeal had also passed away during the pendency of the case. The court had unknowingly issued a notice to the deceased appellant to make alternate legal arrangements, which naturally returned unserved, forcing the court to officially close the “ghost” appeal.