Does an Acquisition Resulting in Severance of Land Justify Enhanced Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?

The High Court has upheld the grant of enhanced compensation for severance caused by land acquisition, confirming the awards of Reference Courts that consider increased labor, cost, and hardship to landowners. This judgment reaffirms established law and serves as binding authority for compensation determinations in similar cases involving land bifurcation, especially those related to infrastructure […]

READ MORE

Can High Courts Exercise Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to Quash Non-Compoundable Offences on the Basis of Compromise?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterates that powers under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 permit quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable, private offences upon genuine, voluntary compromise, where the offence is not heinous or affecting society at large.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRM-M/33807/2025 of BALJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER […]

READ MORE

Does Prolonged Undertrial Detention Justify Grant of Regular Bail in Serious Offences Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? — Precedent for Assessing Bail When Trial Is Protracted

Court holds that extended pre-trial custody and slow progress of trial, even in serious offences like rape, may warrant release on regular bail where the investigation is complete and only a fraction of prosecution witnesses have been examined. Judgment affirms established bail principles and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana. […]

READ MORE

Can High Courts Limit the Definition of “Tainted Candidates” in Selection Process Cancellation Cases When the Supreme Court Has Taken Broader Jurisdiction? — Affirmation of Supreme Court’s Primacy and the Duty of High Courts to Abstain from Parallel Adjudication

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that the identification and categorisation of “tainted candidates” in the context of the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, is not restricted solely to those defined by the High Court’s earlier judgment, but may include additional categories as considered by the Supreme Court and investigative reports. The decision upholds […]

READ MORE

When Can Exoneration in Departmental Enquiry Justify Discharge in Criminal Prosecution for Public Corruption? Clarification of Prima Facie Case Principles at Discharge Stage (Precedent Upheld)

The Bombay High Court clarified that exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not, by itself, entitle an accused to discharge in a connected criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The judgment follows and applies Supreme Court precedents, reaffirming that at the discharge stage, the court must proceed on the presumption that […]

READ MORE

Can Pendency of Supreme Court Review Affect Binding Nature of High Court Orders on Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act Proceedings?

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that, in the absence of contrary Supreme Court directions or distinguishing facts, writ appeals challenging High Court decisions quashing PBPT Act proceedings cannot be entertained, especially when the Review Petition against the Supreme Court’s ruling remains pending. The decision follows existing precedent and grants the Revenue liberty to seek recall […]

READ MORE

Does Dismissal of PBPT Act Proceedings Remain Pending Supreme Court Review in Ganapathi Dealcom Case? Karnataka High Court Reaffirms Precedent as Binding Authority

Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed its earlier approach and the Supreme Court’s precedent in dismissing writ appeals involving the PBPT Act, with proceedings kept open pending result of the Supreme Court’s review in Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. This judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Karnataka […]

READ MORE

Can Industrial Dispute References Be Denied By The Government Due to Long Delay? High Court Reaffirms Binding Principles on Stale and Belated Claims Under the Industrial Disputes Act

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed, in line with Full Bench and Supreme Court authority, that the government may refuse to refer industrial disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the claim is stale or affected by unexplained delay and laches. This judgment serves as binding precedent within the state […]

READ MORE

Can the Appropriate Government Decline to Refer Stale Industrial Disputes to the Labour Court Based on Delay and Laches? — Precedent Affirmed by Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds that the State, acting under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, may validly refuse to refer industrial disputes to adjudication when the claims are stale, unexplained delay is present, and workmen have acquiesced. This judgment applies binding Full Bench precedent and Supreme Court rulings, reaffirming that government […]

READ MORE

Can Long-Delayed Industrial Disputes Be Referred to Labour Courts? Himachal Pradesh High Court Reaffirms Bar on Stale Claims as Binding Law

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, by upholding previous Full Bench authority and recent Supreme Court precedent, confirmed that industrial disputes raised after a prolonged and unexplained delay—following regularization and acceptance of service—are rightly declined for reference. The decision affirms established law, binds subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh, and serves as persuasive authority on delay and […]

READ MORE

Can Industrial Disputes Raised After Inordinate Delay Be Referred To The Labour Court? High Court Reaffirms Principle Of Delay And Laches As Bar To Reference Under Section 10(1) Of The ID Act

The Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) reaffirms, following binding Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents, that stale or belated claims—especially those raised after long acquiescence and regularization—cannot be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This ruling upholds existing law and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts and […]

READ MORE

Does Delay and Laches Bar Reference of Industrial Disputes After Long Periods? Himachal Pradesh High Court Reaffirms Stale Claims Principle and Binding Value of Full Bench Precedents

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld existing legal principles that claims for reference to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be entertained after inordinate, unexplained delay and laches. The judgment affirms previous Full Bench and Supreme Court authority, confirming that stale or dormant disputes need not be referred, with sector-wide implications […]

READ MORE