Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the candidates included in the revised list of 226 candidates acquired no vested right and must participate in the fresh selection process.
Supreme Court clarified that compassionate appointment and compassionate financial assistance are distinct benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2019, and held that Rule 23(1) cannot be invoked to defer a claim for compassionate appointment during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court had held that, since no irreversible or irretrievable stage had been reached and the appellant’s unpaid claim could still be pursued before the NCLT, interference with Company Court’s order was unwarranted.
A man who had owned land since childhood under a 1960 deed was nearly stripped of his entire property through a doctrine designed to prevent re-litigation, the Supreme Court stepped in, holding that constructive res judicata cannot be used to produce harsh or inequitable consequences.
The present appeal presents an important question concerning the delicate balance between strict adherence to statutory recruitment norms and the constitutional obligation of courts to ensure fairness where employees, appointed through a duly initiated public selection process and having rendered long years of unblemished service, face the prospect of displacement on account of procedural defects allegedly attributable not to them but to the authorities conducting the recruitment.
The Court recognised that it would be unrealistic to expect a constant vigil over every tree and shrub within city limits. Likewise, although it may be conceivable that an old branch might eventually give way, public authorities cannot be expected to cut every branch merely because such a possibility exists.
Holding that wilful abstention from inquiry after receiving a court notice attracts constructive notice, the Supreme Court ruled the respondents’ 2022 revocation application hopelessly time-barred under Art. 137, Limitation Act, and restored the Single Judge’s dismissal order.
The Court clarified that the guidelines issued herein are not intended to be understood as exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. The determination of such application was left to the sound discretion of the Court concerned, to be exercised on a case-to-case basis.
The Court created a new compensatory head for the homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased.
The Court declined to interfere with the NGT’s order holding that a landlord, being the owner and not the actual occupier of the premises, cannot be held accountable for environmental violations by the tenant.
The Calcutta High Court reversed a Sessions Court acquittal, convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 312 IPC and then directed him to surrender before the trial court for sentencing. The Supreme Court found the procedure “unknown to law.”
The Court held that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, warranting to be nullified under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce.
Explore the key family law developments of May 2026, featuring significant decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts on maintenance, matrimonial rights, residence disputes, child marriage, guardianship, divorce, succession and child custody.
By judgment day, the mall had been running for seventeen years, supporting 8,000 livelihoods and generating ₹100 crores in annual tax revenue. The Supreme Court held that demolition would not vindicate the public interest, it would destroy it.
The Court clarified that limitation under Section 34, Arbitration Act, begins only upon disposal of proceedings formally instituted and entertained under Section 33 by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The present case is an unfortunate occasion where despite repeatedly knocking the doors of the Courts below, there had been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint.
The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to 3 accused in a hospital murder case, holding that the High Court failed to consider their specific roles and serious criminal antecedents. The Court reiterated that custody period and delay in trial cannot alone justify bail in heinous offences involving armed mob violence.
The Court held that guardian’s consent does not replace Court’s independent duty to assess whether transaction serves minor’s best interests.
The Court attached significance to the fact that a married son remained part of the family irrespective of his marital status, whereas a married daughter was excluded merely because she was married.
May 2026 was a landmark month for Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court upheld electoral integrity, extended protection to trafficking survivors, reformed bail jurisprudence, advanced gender equality in matrimonial law, and settled long-contested questions in arbitration, IBC, and property law