Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Compensation Granted: Delay in release from prison

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan & Others (Criminal Appeal No. [To Be Allocated] of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5036 of 2025, decided on May 29, 2026), the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a significant matter concerning the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the public law remedy of compensation for illegal detention. The appellant, a convict sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment, had secured an order for permanent release on parole from a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. Despite the verification of his sureties, state officials delayed his actual release by 24 days under the guise of administratively reviewing whether to appeal the parole order. He was eventually set free only after a Division Bench issued a habeas corpus mandate ordering his immediate release.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the 24-day interim window constituted an illegal detention that flagrantly violated the appellant’s constitutional rights. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the State’s defense that the original parole order was procedurally erroneous, emphasizing the rule of law principle of “obey first, appeal later”. The Court held that a judicial mandate remains fully operational unless stayed by a superior forum, and slow bureaucratic decision-making cannot place an individual’s personal liberty sub-par to administrative convenience. Accordingly, the Court directed the State of Rajasthan to pay the appellant ₹11,00,000 in monetary compensation as exemplary damages under public law.

Detailed Summary of Judgment

1. Factual Matrix and Trajectory of Detention

  • The Conviction and Sentence: The appellant, Daudayal, was originally convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, on December 8, 1988, for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II read with Section 149, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), receiving a four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The Rajasthan High Court confirmed the findings and sentence in 2021, and the appellant was subsequently arrested to serve his term on December 23, 2021.
  • The Parole Contradiction: On December 3, 2023, having already served a substantial portion of his sentence, the appellant applied for permanent parole. The state authorities rejected his application on January 18, 2024, on the rigid ground that he had not previously applied for regular, staged periods of parole. The appellant challenged this rejection through a criminal writ petition before the High Court.
  • The Judicial Orders and Delay: On November 5, 2024, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed his petition and directed his release on parole subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each. The official verification of these sureties was completed on November 13, 2024. However, prison authorities failed to release him. Aggrieved by the persistent incarceration, the appellant moved a Division Bench via a Habeas Corpus petition, which ultimately forced the state to release him forthwith on December 6, 2024. By that date, he had been detained for an extra 24 days following the completion of his bail prerequisites.

2. Core Legal Issues Formulated

The Apex Court framed the following distinct questions for consideration:

  1. What constitutes “illegal detention” within the framework of constitutional protections, and can a validly convicted individual claim illegal detention if a release order is unfulfilled?
  2. Whether slow bureaucratic processing or an administrative intent to appeal a judicial mandate legalizes the continued confinement of a prisoner.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to monetary compensation under public law for the 24-day delay, and what should be the appropriate quantum.

3. Arguments Canvassed by the Parties

A. Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant-Convict

  • Violation of Article 21: The appellant’s counsel argued that keeping a person behind bars after a competent court has signed a release order is a flagrant violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. State officials cannot take the law into their own hands without facing strict accountability.
  • International Standards & Precedents: The defense invoked Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which establishes an enforceable right to compensation for anyone unlawfully detained. Reliance was heavily placed on foundational public law compensation cases such as Rudal Shah, Bhim Singh, and DK Basu to claim an entitlement of ₹8,00,000 in damages.

B. Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent State

  • Violation of Parole Rules: The State of Rajasthan contended that the Single Judge’s release order directly violated Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The rules mandate that a prisoner must successfully undergo three staged regular paroles (20, 30, and 40 days) to observe their external conduct before becoming eligible for a permanent parole recommendation.
  • Administrative Delays Justified: The State further argued that because the judicial order was erroneous and went against statutory rules, the state administration was actively considering preferred appellate remedies. This administrative contemplation meant that the local jail superintendent could not be timely informed, meaning the custody was not technically “illegal detention” but rather the continuation of an un-suspended legal sentence.

4. Constitutional Analysis & Core Reasoning of the Court

A. Defining the Boundary of “Illegal Detention”

The Supreme Court noted that while an absolute definition is rare, “illegal detention” fundamentally represents the deprivation of personal liberty by the State without lawful authority or in direct violation of constitutional procedures. Even if an individual’s original entry into prison was authorized by law, the detention transforms into an illegal custody the moment its valid legal basis expires or is superseded by a fresh, fair, and reasonable judicial mandate.

B. The Inviolable Principle of “Obey First, Appeal Later”

The Court forcefully negated the State’s plea that it was entitled to hold the prisoner while calculating whether to challenge the Single Judge’s parole order. Synthesizing institutional principles from Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah (2007) and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2004), the Court crystallized the following guidelines:

  • Once a clear direction is issued by a competent court of law, it must be obeyed and implemented instantly without any administrative reservation. Right or wrong, a judicial order remains fully operational until it is stayed, modified, or set aside by a superior court.
  • Merely preferring an appeal or contemplating an administrative challenge does not automatically keep a judicial decree in abeyance. The Court warned that allowing administrative bodies to ignore court orders on the specious plea that the direction is incorrect would result in institutional chaos and severely impair the administration of justice.

C. Personal Liberty Versus Bureaucratic Sclerosis

The Court observed that just because an individual has been convicted of a crime, it does not mean their fundamental human rights weigh less on the scales of justice. The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter that can be sidelined to accommodate slow, grinding bureaucratic processes. The State must ensure its internal communication systems are streamlined so that administrative inaction does not restrict an individual’s freedom once they have secured their liberty through a court order.

D. Compensation as an Established Public Law Remedy

The Bench traced the jurisprudence of awarding monetary compensation for the violation of Article 21, establishing it as an independent strict liability remedy distinct from private tort claims:

  • Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983): Where a prisoner was detained for 14 extra years after acquittal, the Court ruled that mulcting violators in monetary compensation is a vital tool to secure compliance with Article 21.
  • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Established that monetary amends under public law act as exemplary damages against the State for failing in its public duty to protect guaranteed citizens’ rights.
  • Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of M.P. (2025): Reaffirmed the recent application of these principles, granting ₹25,00,000 for post-sentence illegal detention.

Because the appellant’s sureties were verified to the satisfaction of the local authorities by November 13, 2024, his continued confinement until December 6, 2024, lacked any legal justification and directly amounted to a breach of public law duty.

5. Final Decretal Order

  • Appeal Allowed: The Criminal Appeal preferred by the convict is allowed in full terms.
  • Award of Compensation: The Supreme Court awards the appellant monetary compensation to the tune of ₹11,00,000 (Eleven Lakhs Only) for the 24 days of illegal custody suffered by him at the hands of the respondent State.
  • Direct Disbursement: The State of Rajasthan is directed to deposit the awarded sum directly into the validated bank account of the appellant[cite: 20]. The details of the account shall be furnished by the appellant’s counsel to the State’s representative without delay[cite: 20].
  • Applications Disposed: All pending interlocutory applications associated with the appeal are formally disposed of[cite: 20].

2026 INSC 599

Daudayal V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.O.J. 29.05.2026)

2026 INSC 599 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Hindu Minority and Guardianship: Power to alienate a minor’s immovable property

June 11, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India, in Shephali Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal (2026 INSC 621), addressed a critical legal issue concerning the boundaries of a natural guardian’s power to alienate a minor’s immovable property under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The appellant, a widowed mother, sought judicial permission to sell her minor son’s inherited share in a property to secure their financial livelihood and ensure the child’s future education. Both the District Court and the Calcutta High Court had rejected her application.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, clarifying that statutory restrictions under Section 8(2) are intended to safeguard the minor from exploitative alienations, not to paralyze a natural guardian from acting in situations of genuine “evident advantage” or “necessity”. The Court ruled that lower courts must adopt a realistic, holistic, and child-centric approach—rather than a pedantic one—when evaluating what constitutes the “benefit of the minor”.

1. Factual Background of the Case

  • The Parties: The appellant, Shephali Chakraborty, is the mother and natural guardian of the minor, Master Basab Chakraborty.
  • The Property: The minor inherited a fractional share of an ancestral property located in Darjeeling following the intestate demise of his father, Late Mr. Basudeb Chakraborty. The property had originally been acquired by the minor’s paternal great-grandfather in 1957.
  • The Necessity to Sell: Following her husband’s death, the appellant faced acute financial distress, lacking any stable stream of income to sustain herself and provide for her minor son’s upkeep and higher education. She sought to sell the minor’s share along with her own to relocate, stabilize their lives, and invest the proceeds into a secure fixed deposit for the minor’s exclusive benefit.

2. Procedural History

  • Trial Court (District Judge, Darjeeling): The appellant filed an application seeking prior judicial permission to dispose of the minor’s share as mandated under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The District Judge rejected the application, taking a strict view that an immediate, pressing financial emergency or “evident danger” to the property had not been demonstrated.
  • High Court Appeal: The Calcutta High Court affirmed the District Court’s rejection, holding that a future educational requirement did not constitute an immediate legal necessity sufficient to alienate minor-owned immovable property. Aggrieved by these orders, the mother filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

3. Statutory Framework Analyzed

The Supreme Court meticulously unpacked the structure of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, dividing it into operational parts:

  • Section 8(1) – Managerial Powers: Empowers a natural guardian to perform all acts necessary or reasonable for the benefit, protection, or proper management of the minor’s estate.
  • Section 8(2) – Absolute Restrictions: Explicitly prohibits a natural guardian from selling, gifting, exchanging, mortgaging, or encumbering the minor’s immovable property without obtaining prior permission from the Court. It also restricts long-term leases exceeding 5 years.
  • Section 8(3) – Voidable Nature: Declares that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in violation of sub-section (1) or (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.

4. Observations and Legal Reasoning of the Court

  • The True Purpose of Legislative Caution: The Court observed that the requirement of prior judicial approval under Section 8(2) acts as a protective shield against reckless or self-serving transactions by guardians that permanently erode a minor’s proprietary rights. However, this caution cannot be transformed into an insurmountable barrier when a mother is acting in absolute good faith for her child’s survival and growth.
  • Defining “Benefit of the Minor”: The Supreme Court rejected the rigid interpretation applied by the lower courts. It held that “benefit of the minor” is a broad concept that encompasses not just the physical protection of an estate, but the overall socio-economic well-being, nutrition, clothing, housing, and structural education of the child.
  • Correction of a Pedantic Approach: The Court noted that forcing a widowed mother to retain a fractional, un-demarcated share of property while depriving her of the liquid funds required to raise the child defeats the very spirit of welfare legislation. Funding higher education and migrating away from financial distress are valid components of “evident advantage” to the minor.

5. Final Conclusion and Directions

The Supreme Court granted leave, set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court and the District Judge, Darjeeling, and allowed the appellant’s application to sell the minor’s share. To ensure the minor’s financial security, the Court imposed the following protective conditions:

  1. The sale must be executed at a fair market value or higher.
  2. The entire sale proceeds corresponding to the minor’s share must be directly deposited into a long-term fixed deposit scheme in a nationalized bank under the minor’s name, with the mother designated as the guardian.
  3. The minor shall be entitled to the absolute proceeds upon attaining majority, while the mother can utilize the accruing interest strictly for the child’s educational expenses upon satisfying the bank’s requirements.

2026 INSC 621

Shephali Chakraborty V. State of West Bengal (D.O. J. 03.06.2026)

2026 INSC 621 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Ddivorce: Denial of conjugal rights without a reasonable cause

June 11, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India, in Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh (2026 INSC 620), adjudicated a matrimonial dispute concerning an appeal filed by a wife against a High Court decree granting a divorce to her husband . Both parties were medical doctors. The central legal issue evaluated by the Court was whether the wife’s conduct during their short period of cohabitation—specifically, her persistent denial of conjugal rights, sleeping in a separate room locked from the inside, and failing to open the door upon knocking—legally amounted to “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings on the ground of cruelty, reiterating established jurisprudence that the persistent refusal of sexual intercourse and the unilateral denial of conjugal rights without a reasonable cause constitute severe mental cruelty, validating the dissolution of the marriage.

1. Factual Background of the Case

  • The Parties: The Appellant (wife), Dr. Sonal Talpada, was working as a gynecologist in a government hospital in Gujarat. The Respondent (husband), Dr. Veerbhan Singh, was in state medical service in Rajasthan.
  • Marriage and Separation: The couple married on December 5, 2007, according to Hindu rites. No children were born from the wedlock. Sociocultural differences arose rapidly, and the wife lived with the husband for a very brief duration of only two to three months at his matrimonial home in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, out of a total matrimonial period of two years .
  • The Husband’s Allegations: The husband filed a divorce petition in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that he was subjected to extensive cruelty . He claimed the wife consistently denied the establishment of sexual relations and isolated herself from him.

2. Procedural History

  • Family Court Ruling: On August 21, 2018, the Family Court at Bharatpur dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, concluding that he had failed to legally prove the allegations of cruelty.
  • High Court Judgment: Aggrieved, the husband preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. The High Court reversed the Family Court’s order, allowing the appeal and granting a divorce on multiple grounds, including mental cruelty through the denial of sexual relations, long-term desertion, and continuous separation for 15 years . The wife subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
  • Failed Mediation: While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court referred the parties to mediation on May 23, 2025. However, the mediation proved unsuccessful, as detailed in a report dated November 27, 2025.

3. Arguments Presented by the Parties

  • On behalf of the Appellant (Wife): The wife’s counsel argued that she had never abandoned her husband and genuinely desired to continue her matrimonial life. It was argued that her extended stay in Gujarat was initially permitted by her father-in-law until a nursing home could be constructed in Bharatpur (which never materialized). She maintained that the husband was trying to take advantage of his own wrongs and that grounds like the irretrievable breakdown of marriage were never formally pleaded.
  • On behalf of the Respondent (Husband): The husband’s counsel strongly opposed the appeal, pointing out that the parties had cohabited for a mere 2–3 months out of an 18-year marriage span and had been living entirely separate lives for over 15 years. The counsel emphasized that the wife systematically denied him sexual relations, failed to build mutual trust or companionship, and that the marriage had completely disintegrated .

4. Legal Assessment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court closely examined the elements of “mental cruelty” by relying heavily on its landmark ruling in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007).

  • The Samar Ghosh Principles: The Court highlighted critical instances from the Samar Ghosh precedent:
    • A unilateral decision to refuse intercourse for a considerable period without any physical incapacity or valid reason constitutes mental cruelty.
    • An exceptionally long period of continuous separation strongly indicates that the matrimonial bond is ruptured beyond repair, rendering the marriage a legal fiction. Refusing to sever such a hollow tie shows a disregard for the emotional well-being of the parties and inflicts further mental cruelty.

5. Findings and Final Conclusion of the Court

  • Dismissal of Petty Conduct: The Court discarded a minor allegation raised by the husband that the wife had publicly insulted him in front of a shopkeeper during a trip to the Taj Mahal, validating the Family Court’s view that such interactions do not constitute matrimonial cruelty .
  • Establishment of Cruelty via Denial of Conjugal Rights: However, on the core issue of cohabitation, the Supreme Court found clear evidence that during their brief time together, the wife consistently went to sleep early, locked her bedroom door from the inside, and regularly refused to open the door when the husband knocked. The husband was forced to sleep in a separate room, a fact that the wife did not deny.
  • Final Ruling: The Court reaffirmed that the persistent, unjustified refusal of sexual intercourse and the denial of regular conjugal rights legally amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acceptance of cruelty as a valid ground for dissolving the marriage was entirely correct and sustainable. The wife’s appeal was dismissed.

2026 INSC 620

Sonal Talpada  V. Veerbhan Singh (D.O.J. 02.06.2026)

2026 INSC 620 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

NDPS: Bail Cancelled – Commercial quantity- Twin conditions stipulated under Section 37

June 11, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India, in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (2026 INSC 618), allowed a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging a regular bail order granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to an accused facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The matter involved the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order, emphasizing that whenever a case involves a commercial quantity, compliance with the stringent twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is legally mandatory. The Court ruled that since the High Court completely failed to consider these statutory requirements and given the accused’s criminal antecedents of a similar nature, the bail could not be sustained.

1. Factual Background of the Case

  • The Incident and Registration: The case originated from an FIR (No. 06 dated January 10, 2024) registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act. The police had set up a checkpoint at a bridge where the alleged recovery took place.
  • Commercial Quantity: The recovery made from the accused/respondent involved a “commercial quantity” of narcotics under the statutory definitions of the NDPS Act.
  • Period of Incarceration: At the time of the Supreme Court’s evaluation, the respondent had undergone custody for a period of only 1 year and 7 months out of a potential maximum sentence of twenty years if convicted.

2. Procedural History

  • High Court Order: The Respondent (Balraj Singh) filed a criminal main petition (CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking regular bail. The High Court allowed the petition and directed his release on regular bail via an order dated October 15, 2025.
  • Appeal by the State: Aggrieved by the regular bail order, the State of Punjab preferred a special leave petition (subsequently converted to a criminal appeal) before the Supreme Court of India.

3. Key Legal Issues Addressed

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in granting regular bail to an accused involving a commercial quantity of narcotics without checking compliance against the restrictive boundaries of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4. Legal Principles and Observations of the Court

A. Mandatory Application of Section 37 NDPS Act

  • The Supreme Court highlighted a consistent line of precedents reinforcing that in cases involving a “commercial quantity” of contraband, considering the twin conditions under Section 37 is not optional but strictly mandatory.
  • The Twin Conditions: Under Section 37, bail can only be granted if:
    1. The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application.
    2. The Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
  • Upon perusing the impugned bail order, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had passed the order without any consideration or reference to these mandatory twin conditions. Consequently, the order was declared legally unsustainable.

B. Impact of Criminal Antecedents

  • The Court evaluated the respondent’s profile and noted that he possessed past criminal antecedents involving the commission of offenses of the exact same nature under the NDPS Act.
  • Due to these specific antecedents, the Court observed that it was impossible to conclude or satisfy the legal requirement that the respondent would not likely engage in similar criminal conduct if left out on bail.

C. Proportionality of Incarceration under Article 21

  • The Court briefly touched upon the argument of prolonged detention vis-à-vis individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • It noted that an incarceration period of 1 year and 7 months against a potential maximum sentence of 20 years does not constitute an exceptionally long period of delay that would warrant overriding the statutory bars of the NDPS Act to grant bail on humanitarian or constitutional delays.

5. Final Conclusion of the Court

The Supreme Court granted leave, set aside the judgment and regular bail order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and dismissed the respondent’s case for bail.

2026 INSC 618

State of Punjab  V. Balraj Singh @ Billa (D.O.J. 02.06.2026)

2026 INSC 618 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Arbitration: Calculation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34

June 11, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India, in National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr. (2026 INSC 616), addressed an appeal concerning the calculation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court of Karnataka had set aside a District Court order that condoned a delay in filing the Section 34 applications. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, clarifying that when a party applies for the correction or interpretation of an arbitral award under Section 33 of the Act, the limitation period of three months for filing a challenge under Section 34(3) commences only from the date on which the order disposing of the Section 33 application is received by the applicant.

1. Factual Background of the Case

  • Land Acquisition: On December 15, 2009, the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways issued a preliminary notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to acquire land in the Bellary District, which included land belonging to Respondent No. 1.
  • Arbitral Proceedings: Disputes arose regarding the compensation awarded for the acquired land, leading to arbitration proceedings.
  • Section 33 Applications: Following the passing of the initial arbitral award, applications were submitted under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking corrections or interpretations of the award.
  • Disposal and Receipt of Order: The Arbitral Tribunal passed a common order disposing of these Section 33 applications on July 4, 2022. A certified copy of this disposal order was officially received by the Appellant, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), on September 15, 2022.
  • Filing of Section 34 Applications: NHAI subsequently instituted applications to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act on November 7, 2022.

2. Procedural History

  • Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari: The Respondent asserted that NHAI’s Section 34 applications were barred by limitation. However, via orders dated August 5, 2023, the Principal District and Sessions Judge condoned the delay, finding the applications to be within the permissible timeline.
  • High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench): The Respondents filed a writ petition challenging the District Judge’s condonation of delay. On January 22, 2024, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the District Judge’s order, ruling that the Section 34 applications were time-barred. NHAI appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

3. Key Legal Issue

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is to be calculated from the date of the original arbitral award or from the date of the receipt of the order disposing of applications made under Section 33 of the Act.

4. Legal Principles and Framework

  • Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act: Generally, an application for setting aside an arbitral award must be made within three months from the date on which the party making the application receives the arbitral award.
  • The Section 33 Exception: Section 34(3) explicitly provides a proviso/exception: if a request has been made under Section 33 (for correction or interpretation of the award), the three-month limitation period begins from the date on which that request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal.

5. Findings and Conclusion of the Court

  • Timely Institution: The Supreme Court observed that the certified copy of the common order disposing of the Section 33 applications was received by NHAI on September 15, 2022. The Section 34 applications were filed shortly thereafter on November 7, 2022.
  • Reckoning of Limitation: The Court held that even when reckoning the strict statutory limitation period from the actual date of receipt of the Section 33 disposal order, the applications under Section 34 were instituted well within the prescribed three-month timeframe contemplated under Section 34(3) of the Act.
  • Final Order: Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted NHAI’s appeal, set aside the High Court of Karnataka’s judgment, and restored the District Court’s orders. The Court directed that the Section 34 applications be decided on their own merits in accordance with law.

2026 INSC 616

National Highway Authority of India  V. T. Younis And Another (D.O.J. 02.06.2026)

2026 INSC 616 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins