Can the State or Acquiring Body Adopt a ‘Pick and Choose’ Approach in Challenging Land Acquisition Awards? Reaffirmation of Non-Discriminatory Principles and Proper Classification of Irrigated Lands in Compensation Assessment

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reaffirms that the State/acquiring authority cannot discriminately pursue appeals on similar land acquisition awards, following Supreme Court guidance in Shivappa v. Chief Engineer. Judgment clarifies compensation classification between dry and seasonally irrigated land, and affirms accepted procedures for valuation of trees. Stands as binding precedent on valuation and procedural equality […]

Can Claimants in Land Acquisition Cases Be Awarded Enhanced Compensation Above Their Stated Claims When Supported by Evidence? Reaffirmation of Non-Discrimination and Methodology for Valuing Land and Trees

The Bombay High Court has clarified that claimants are entitled to receive higher compensation than the amount claimed if the evidence supports such entitlement, irrespective of self-imposed limitations on their claim, provided deficit court fees are paid. The judgment also reaffirms that state authorities cannot discriminate between similarly placed claimants and must follow a uniform […]

Can the State Adopt a ‘Pick and Choose’ Approach in Land Acquisition Appeals? Bombay High Court Affirms Equitable Compensation Principles as Binding Precedent

The Court held that the State and its instrumentalities cannot selectively appeal land acquisition awards when similar cases have been accepted, branding this as discriminatory and contrary to Supreme Court guidance. The judgment upholds the Reference Court’s methodology for awarding compensation, sets uniform standards for valuation of land and trees, and provides binding authority on […]

Does the Doctrine of Notional Extension Apply to Accidents Occurring Outside Employment Premises under the Employees Compensation Act — and Who Bears the Burden of Proving Causal Connection?

The Bombay High Court reaffirms the application of the doctrine of notional extension to accidents occurring outside the employer’s premises, holding that employers bear the burden to disprove a causal connection between such an accident and employment, thereby upholding established precedent as binding authority in Employees Compensation Act matters.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Whether Uniform Compensation Must Be Paid in Land Acquisition When the Acquiring Authority Accepts Some Reference Court Awards but Contests Others? — Affirmation of Anti-Discrimination Principle and Compensation Enhancement in Land Acquisition Cases

The Bombay High Court holds that an acquiring authority’s “pick and choose” approach—challenging enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court in some land acquisition cases but acquiescing in others similarly situated—is discriminatory and impermissible as per Supreme Court precedent. The judgment affirms and applies anti-discrimination principles in land acquisition, clarifies compensatory rates for dry and […]

Does a Certificate Issued by a Private Body (All India Council for Open Education) Qualify as a ‘Matriculation Certificate’ Recognisable by State Authorities? Clarification on State Recognition of Private Educational Certifications

The Jharkhand High Court held that certificates issued by the All India Council for Open Education are not recognised as valid matriculation certificates by state authorities, reaffirming the distinction between credentials from authorised boards and those provided by private preparatory institutions. This decision upholds existing law and provides a clear precedent for assessing the validity […]

Can Candidates Demand Pre-declaration of Written Exam Results and Merit Lists Before Document Verification in Public Service Commission Recruitments?

The Uttarakhand High Court holds that the formal declaration of written examination results and overall merit lists is not mandatory prior to the stage of document verification; the process established under the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Rules, 2013, is to be followed. The judgment upholds existing procedure and confirms limited judicial intervention at the pre-final […]

Does Abolition of “Work Charge Establishment” Bar Grant of Work Charge Status After 8 Years’ Service? Himachal Pradesh High Court Affirms Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has reaffirmed that abolition of the work charge establishment does not preclude eligible employees from claiming work charge status upon completion of eight years’ service, following the Supreme Court’s judgments in Surajmani and Nanak Chand. The decision upholds existing precedent and is binding authority for similar employment matters involving […]

Can a Writ Petition Be Dismissed for Non-Prosecution When Maintainability Remains Unaddressed?

The High Court reiterated that non-prosecution—demonstrated by repeated non-appearance and failure to address queries on maintainability—justifies dismissal of a writ petition. This order upholds established procedural precedent on case management and litigant diligence, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in matters of non-prosecution or procedural neglect within writ proceedings.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Can Offences Involving Forgery and Banking Fraud Be Quashed on Settlement? Reaffirming Limits of Section 482 CrPC Quashment in Economic Offence Cases

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings for offences of forgery, fraud, and economic offences involving banks cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement; such offences are against society, not just the individual victim. This judgment maintains and applies longstanding Supreme Court precedents, and serves as binding […]

When Can Bail Be Granted to Accused With Multiple Prior Cases, Including Detention Under Goondas Act, in Serious Offences Involving Murder and SC/ST Act? — Clarification of Judicial Approach Under BNSS and Related Statutes

Madras High Court clarifies that pendency of prior cases and previous preventive detention under the Goondas Act are relevant but not absolute bars to bail under Section 483 BNSS, especially when investigation is near completion and detention orders are revoked; affirms established principles, with case-specific nuanced application to grave offences involving murder and SC/ST (POA) […]

# When Can Courts Grant Extension to Surrender After Grant of Anticipatory Bail? — Clarification on Modification and Interpretation of Bail Orders

The Jharkhand High Court clarifies that where an anticipatory bail order does not specify a surrender timeline, there is no requirement for a separate extension or modification; such orders operate without a fixed time limit unless expressly stated. This affirmation upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in bail matters.   […]