Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bringing together major service and labour law rulings from the Supreme Court and High Courts, this roundup presents short summaries of key decisions along with significant legislative updates.
Supreme Court clarifies that rejection of a jurisdictional plea under Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be challenged under Section 34 at an interim stage and must await the final arbitral award.
This is yet another occasion for us to reiterate the constitutional and statutory obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to give admission to students forwarded by the State Government without any delay.
The Court observed that the absence of competent and effective prosecution and defence not only undermines the fairness of the process but also increases the risk of a disproportionate, unjust, and uninformed sentencing outcome.
“Neither the FIR nor the impugned order discloses availability of any tangible material to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had conspired in the preparation of the alleged forged Will, or that the registered sale deed dated 18 December 1998 was executed by him with knowledge that the signatures on the Will were forged.”
“Supreme Court set aside the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused.”
The Court denied the discharge of the company director in a cheque dishonour case wherein the said company was undergoing liquidation.
The Court noted that the Panchayat had allowed administrative arrangements to continue for years without challenge, which militated against granting declaratory relief.
“We wonder how many such currency notes recovered in this type of offences get destroyed as they are not kept at a safe place. It’s a huge revenue loss for the State.”
“A literal interpretation of Section 9 of the Act would indicate that the right to seek interim relief is available to any party to the arbitration before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the award is delivered but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the Act.”
Interpreting Rule 10 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Court holds that only “further inquiry” is permissible—not a fresh inquiry—quashes High Court ruling, and grants consequential benefits to the appellant.
The Supreme Court based the standardisation of prosthetic limb compensation on 5-year replacement cycle and 70-year lifespan.
Formerly a Judge of Kerala High Court and Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Justice K. Vinod Chandran was appointed to the Supreme Court in January 2025.
The Court clarified that if the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender.
“Section 132, Zamindari Abolition Act, expressly prohibits the conferment of bhumidhari rights in respect of public utility lands, including pasture lands and khalihan.”
With regard to the enforceability of the amended Chapter III to the elections to Bar Councils of different States, a decision will be taken on a case-to-case basis.
The terms of the recruitment rules and the advertisement form the basis of the selection process and are binding on both, the candidates as well as the recruiting agencies.
“Scheme of the Arbitration Act does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease with the death of a party. Section 35, Arbitration Act, extends the finality of an arbitral award not only to parties to the award, but also to ‘parties claiming under them’.”
The Court held that the scope and adjudication of the appeals had to be confined to the direction given by the Single Judge, and nothing beyond that.
“The Registrar Generals of all the High Courts are hereby directed to communicate this order and submit a report along with the details of the Bar Associations that have failed to comply with the order or are reluctant to comply with these directions.”