In the case of The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, and others v. S. Raja and others (2026), the Supreme Court of India addressed a long-standing dispute involving allegations of illegal land transactions and the rights of innocent third-party purchasers in Thazhambur Village, Kancheepuram District. Case Background and Dispute The
In the case of Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr. (2026), the Supreme Court of India significantly enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim, particularly focusing on the legal principles for awarding costs related to prosthetic limbs. Case Background In May 2007, the appellant’s right leg was
In the case of Babu Singh v. Consolidation Officer and Others (2026), the Supreme Court of India upheld the cancellation of land leases (pattas) granted on public utility land, ruling that administrative officers cannot circumvent statutory prohibitions on diverting communal resources by simply re-categorizing the land in revenue records. Case
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Malik (2026), the Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court judgment that had favored a police constable terminated for concealing a medical disqualification, ruling that fraud and the suppression of material facts vitiate public appointments.
In the case of V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (2026), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the appropriate legal remedy for a legal heir or representative to challenge an arbitral award is through Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, rather than through a
In the case of Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (2026), the Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court order that had denied an employee back wages, ruling that the employer had used “unequal bargaining power” to delay benefits the employee was legally entitled to
In the case of Himakshi v. Rahul Verma & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India upheld the quashing of a recruitment process, ruling that a preferential higher qualification cannot substitute for a mandatory essential qualification in public employment. Case Background The dispute originated from a 2016 recruitment drive by
