Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court has held that a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC must be signed by the parties or a duly authorised representative, and that an advocate cannot bind a client to a compromise affecting valuable property rights solely on implied authority
Bringing together the month’s significant service law developments from Supreme Court and High Court decisions on appointment, recruitment, eligibility, jurisdiction, employment regulation, and resignation.
Supreme Court rules a 1957 registered sale deed is not void under pre-1982 UPZA & LR Act, restores appellants’ revenue entries, and clarifies Section 154
“While the loss of leg cannot be compensated, the appellant could be paid pecuniary compensation towards the purchase of the prosthetic leg and its repairs. It would tend to do justice.”
The Supreme Court held that courts must ensure just compensation even where a legitimate conventional head has been omitted by the courts below. Correcting such an omission, it enhanced the MACT award by granting ₹40,000 each towards filial consortium to the parents of the deceased.
The Court reiterated that assessment of functional disability must reflect actual loss of earning capacity and not merely physical disability.
The PIL highlighted the widespread absence of properly equipped Ladies’ Bar Rooms and essential amenities in High Courts, District Courts, Taluka Courts, Tribunals, Revenue Courts, and Commissions across the country.
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sheel Nagu
Justice Sheel Nagu’s elevation to the Supreme Court on 2 June 2026 marks a significant milestone in an illustrious legal and judicial journey spanning nearly four decades.
Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Substitute Mandatory Injunction with Compensation When No Such Relief Is Claimed
Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot substitute a decree of mandatory injunction with monetary compensation in a second appeal when such relief was neither sought nor consented to by the plaintiff.
INC candidate Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected for non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in her Form 26 affidavit. The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits, holding that the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) admits no exception for cases involving manifest illegality.
Supreme Court: In a civil appeal arising from a dispute concerning delayed delivery of a residential flat, the Division Bench of Vikram
In a judgment arising from a five-year-old child run over by a tanker while walking to school, the Supreme Court declared that Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations and Panchayats bear an enforceable duty to provide pedestrian infrastructure, with remedies independent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
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.