The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that tips a waiter earns regularly form part of his income when motor accident compensation is assessed.
Justice Mandeep Pannu decided the matter in United India Insurance Company Limited versus Vipin Kumar.
The claimant worked as a waiter and suffered one hundred per cent permanent disability in a road accident.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chandigarh had taken his monthly income as Rs 12,000 — a salary of Rs 8,000 plus about Rs 4,000 in tips — and awarded Rs 38,77,360.
The insurer argued that only the Rs 8,000 shown in the salary certificate should count.
The court said that money reaching a worker from customers rather than through the employer's fixed salary does not stop being earnings, and the insurer had produced nothing to dispute the tips.
It relied on a Delhi High Court ruling that treated tips as a usual part of hospitality work.
The appeal was dismissed and the tribunal's award upheld.
Monthly income taken:Rs 12,000Award upheld:Rs 38,77,360Disability:100 per cent permanent
Why it matters for exams: Names the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and settles a rule of income computation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a citizen's right to seek information about a public recruitment cannot be made conditional on first establishing that something went wrong.
Justice Kirti Singh decided the petition of an unsuccessful candidate for a constable post who had asked for answer sheets, marks and the videography of a skill test.
The public information officer refused the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the first appellate authority agreed.
On second appeal the State Information Commission ordered the marks to be given but withheld the videography, saying no malice in the assessment had been shown.
The High Court set aside that part of the order and directed that the videography be supplied within thirty days.
It held that the recording is part of the assessment record of a public authority, not an unrelated personal document, and that the presence of other candidates in it does not justify withholding it altogether.
The court relied on rulings of the Delhi and Chhattisgarh High Courts.
Section 8(1)(j) is the personal information exemption in the transparency law.
Exemption claimed:Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act, 2005Time given:Thirty days
Why it matters for exams: Names Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the three-tier appeal route ending at the State Information Commission.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a 28-week-old foetus must be treated as a child when compensation is assessed for a motor accident.
Justice Parmod Goyal decided the appeal in Suresh Kumar Sethi and another versus Sanjeev Kumar and others.
The claim arose from a 1997 accident in which a pregnant woman was struck by a scooter and the unborn child died.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panchkula had found rash and negligent driving but dismissed the claim as not maintainable, following a Himachal Pradesh High Court view.
The High Court set that award aside and followed the Full Bench ruling of the Kerala High Court in Abhulasees P.P. versus Abdumanaf, which allows compensation for the death of an unborn child.
Notional income was taken from the minimum wage, 40 per cent was added for future prospects, half was deducted for personal expenses and a multiplier of nine was applied.
The parents were awarded loss of estate, funeral expenses and filial consortium of Rs 40,000 each, with interest at 7.5 per cent.
The claim petition had been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Age of foetus:28 weeksMultiplier applied:9Filial consortium:Rs 40,000 to each parent
Why it matters for exams: Settles that an unborn child of 28 weeks counts as a child for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a Kerala High Court Full Bench.
Punjab has launched a statewide quiz competition for young people called Punjab Da Crorepati.
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann launched the online portal and asked schools and colleges across the state to register their students.
The winner gets Rs 1 crore, four runners-up get Rs 10 lakh each, eight other toppers Rs 5 lakh each, and more than ten thousand participants also get prizes.
People aged between 15 and 30 may take part.
The question bank has about fifty thousand questions on Punjab's history, culture and geography, on mathematics and on the state government, drawn largely from government recruitment examinations such as those for patwari, constable and the Punjab Civil Services.
There are eleven rounds; nine are held online on the portal and two in person.
The tenth round is held across the state's districts, and the toppers from there go to the grand finale.
Each question carries four options, on the pattern of the television quiz the name echoes.
Top prize:Rs 1 croreRunners-up:Rs 10 lakh each to fourAge band:15 to 30 years
Why it matters for exams: Names a new Punjab government programme, Punjab Da Crorepati, its Rs 1 crore top prize and its 15-30 age band.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that in cases of repeated circulation of child sexual abuse material, the investigating agency must have the accused examined by a qualified psychiatrist or other specialist.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth gave the direction while granting regular bail in a case registered under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the provision that deals with such material.
The first information report had followed a reference from the Online Crime against Women and Children wing of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which works under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The court said that unless the reasons behind the conduct are examined, an agency cannot address recurrence or prevent further victimisation.
A treatable condition needs medical attention and assessment rather than indefinite custody, it said.
Bail was granted on the condition that the petitioner must not threaten or influence any prosecution witness.
The application was moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 439 of the old criminal procedure code.
Copies of the order went to the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Why it matters for exams: Names Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre under the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Supreme Court has stayed further criminal contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary of Punjab and other officials in the long-running dearness allowance dispute.
The order also directs that no coercive steps be taken in the connected civil contempt matter.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had issued a criminal contempt notice after a compliance affidavit was not filed on its earlier order.
That High Court order held that once a state adopts the central pattern for dearness allowance and dearness relief, it takes on a binding duty to release the accrued instalments and cannot defer them indefinitely.
The State told the Supreme Court it had raised dearness allowance from 43 per cent to 53 per cent and that it had inherited about Rs 13,000 crore in legacy arrears.
The court asked the State to place a proposal on how much of the pending amount can be cleared by 31 March 2027.
The Chief Secretary named in the proceedings is K A P Sinha.
The matter is listed again on 1 December.
Dearness allowance raised to:53 per centLegacy arrears cited by the State:About Rs 13,000 croreNext hearing:1 December
Why it matters for exams: Names the Supreme Court bench, the office of Chief Secretary of a state, and the rule that adopting the central dearness allowance pattern creates a binding obligation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a pending maintenance petition between the same parties is not by itself a ground to shift a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 out of the Magistrate's court.
Justice Mandeep Pannu dismissed the transfer application, reported with the neutral citation 2026:PHHC:200211.
Section 27 of that Act vests the original jurisdiction over an application under Section 12 in the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Section 26 only allows the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 to be sought in proceedings already pending before a civil, family or criminal court; it does not create fresh jurisdiction.
The court also held that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 does not stretch the Family Court's jurisdiction to every proceeding between the parties.
Overlapping evidence, common facts and the risk of conflicting findings cannot override the statutory scheme, the court said.
It followed rulings of the Kerala and Delhi High Courts and declined to follow a contrary Bombay view.
The domestic violence case therefore stays with the Magistrate's court.
Act:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Court with original jurisdiction:Judicial Magistrate first classCase:2026:PHHC:200211
Why it matters for exams: Names the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the court that holds original jurisdiction under its Section 12.
PWDVAProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — A civil law that gives a woman protection, residence, maintenance and custody orders against domestic violence.
Punjab's new statewide quiz for the young draws its questions from the state's own history, geography and institutions, and the agricultural university at Ludhiana is one of the standing facts in that set.
Punjab Agricultural University was established in 1962 to serve the state of erstwhile Punjab.
Its campus is at Ludhiana, with the postal address Ludhiana-141004.
The university works through six constituent colleges.
It also runs pre-graduation institutes at Gurdaspur and at Bathinda.
Because the state it was set up for was later divided, the institutions carved out of this university went on to serve Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well.
A transfer plea decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court turned on how far a Family Court's jurisdiction reaches, so the standing law on these courts is worth setting out.
Family Courts in India are set up under the Family Courts Act, 1984, a central law.
Section 7 of that Act defines the jurisdiction of a Family Court, and Section 7(2)(a) gives it the maintenance jurisdiction of a Magistrate under the chapter of the criminal procedure law dealing with maintenance of wives, children and parents.
That maintenance jurisdiction was Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The Act does not hand a Family Court every proceeding that happens to be between the same husband and wife.
A transfer between courts in civil matters is sought under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Courts have held that convenience and even the consent of the parties cannot create a jurisdiction a statute has not given.
Act:Family Courts Act, 1984Jurisdiction section:Section 7Transfer in civil matters:Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Why it matters for exams: Names the Family Courts Act, 1984 and its Section 7, and links the maintenance jurisdiction to Section 125 of the old criminal procedure code, now Section 144 of the BNSS.
The compensation the Punjab and Haryana High Court worked out for the loss of an unborn child followed the standard method used in every motor accident claim.
A claim arising from a motor accident is filed before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the forum created for these cases.
Where the person who died had no proved earnings, the tribunal fixes a notional income, often from the minimum wage for an unskilled worker.
A percentage is then added for future prospects — forty per cent in this case.
A deduction is made for what the person would have spent on himself, which was half here.
The yearly figure is multiplied by a multiplier chosen from the age of the deceased; nine was used in this case.
To that are added conventional heads — loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium — and interest runs from the date the claim was filed, at 7.5 per cent here.
The claim in this case was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Future prospects added:40 per centPersonal expenses deducted:50 per centInterest:7.5 per cent
Why it matters for exams: Names the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the multiplier method with its notional income and future prospects steps.