When Is a Railway Accident Considered an “Untoward Incident” Under Section 123(c)(2) Read With Section 124A of the Railways Act? — Orissa High Court Reaffirms Law and Compensation Rights

The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed that the death of a bona fide passenger in certain railway incidents falls squarely within “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, thereby entitling the claimants to statutory compensation. This judgment upholds the existing interpretive framework and serves as binding authority for matters […]

Does the Orissa High Court’s Summary Disposal of Batched Writ Petitions in 2025 Clarify Any Legal Principle or Procedural Innovation?

Is this order a binding or persuasive precedent for writ practice or interim order vacation in future cases?   Summary Category Data Case Name WP(C)/23453/2014 of GOURI DASH Vs STATE CNR ODHC010201512014 Date of Registration 29-11-2014 Decision Date 17-10-2025 Disposal Nature Disposed Off Judgment Author Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi Court Orissa High Court Bench […]

Can High Courts Decide a Batch of Writ Petitions with a Common Dispositive Order Absent Detailed Reasons?

The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that it may dispose of multiple writ petitions by a common formal order, especially where parties are present and due process is followed. This ruling upholds previous practice in writ adjudication, confirming binding procedure within the jurisdiction and clarifying the effect of earlier interim orders.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Does the Dismissal of an Appeal for Non-Prosecution Constitute a Decision on Merits or Only a Procedural Disposition?

Where an appeal is dismissed solely for non-prosecution with no representation for the appellant, the High Court’s order is procedural and not a pronouncement on the merits. Such orders are limited in precedential value and do not impact the substantive law underlying the appeal.   Summary Category Data Case Name LPA/3380/2024 of LACHHMAN SINGH Vs […]

Existing Precedent Upheld, Clarifies Reference Court’s Jurisdiction and Discretion in Land Acquisition Matters—Binding on Maharashtra Subordinate Courts

The Bombay High Court reaffirms that claimants in land acquisition proceedings are entitled to compensation based on actual entitlement, even if their claim is restricted to a lower figure, subject to payment of deficit court fees. The Court further clarifies that the presence of a water source alone does not qualify land as “permanently irrigated” […]

Does the Acquiring Authority Violate Article 14 by Selectively Appealing Reference Court Awards in Land Acquisition? Clarification of Fairness and Uniformity in Government Land Acquisition Litigation

Bombay High Court holds that the acquiring body cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach by appealing against some claimants and acquiescing to awards for others arising from the same acquisition proceedings. The Court upholds the Supreme Court’s direction against discriminatory conduct, settles guidelines on compensation for dry and irrigated lands, and endorses partial acceptance […]

When Is a Writ Petition “Dismissed as Withdrawn” with Liberty to File Fresh – Does It Create Any Precedential Value?

The Uttarakhand High Court clarified that a writ petition dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, with liberty to file afresh, does not decide any legal question or create binding precedent. The judgment upholds established practice without introducing new law or overruling prior precedent. Its practical utility is limited to the procedural context. […]

Is an Offer for One-Time Settlement (OTS) Validly Rejectable Solely Based on OTS Guidelines Linked to Primary/Collateral Security Value, Where Security Significantly Exceeds Loan?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that where the realizable value of primary and collateral security with a financial institution far exceeds the outstanding dues, mere reference to internal OTS guidelines requiring settlement above a security threshold is illogical for outright rejection of borrower settlement proposals. This decision sets aside the earlier rejection by the […]

What is the precedential impact of dismissal of writ petitions “as not pressed”—Does it create binding law or clarify any legal principle?

A petition seeking relief was withdrawn at the preliminary stage; the High Court dismissed it as “not pressed” without adjudicating any legal issue. Such dismissals do not establish precedent or clarify substantive law and cannot be cited as binding or persuasive authority.   Summary Category Data Case Name WPC/5707/2025 of JHARKHAND INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, […]

Can a Second Anticipatory Bail Application Be Entertained Absent Changed Circumstances After Earlier Withdrawal With Liberty to Approach Lower Court? Reaffirmed: Subsequent Anticipatory Bail Without Changed Circumstances Is Not Maintainable—Binding Authority on Anticipatory Bail Practice in Criminal Procedure

Where a prior anticipatory bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the lower court, a fresh anticipatory bail application to the High Court—without disclosing any change in circumstance—is liable to be dismissed. This judgment upholds established precedent, providing binding authority within Jharkhand on the maintainability of successive anticipatory bail applications in […]

Does the Absence of a Detailed Order Affect the Precedential Value of a Judgment Disposing of an Appeal?

The Court issued a summary disposal of the appeal without recording reasons, thereby not creating new law or overruling previous authority; the approach reaffirms established procedural standards and has minimal precedential or persuasive impact in future litigation.   Summary Category Data Case Name FAO/62/2020 of S. NARAYAN REDDY Vs UNION OF INDIA CNR ODHC010053292020 Date […]

Can a counsel’s concession bind an employer to appoint a waitlisted candidate beyond the waiting list’s validity, in contravention of statutory recruitment rules?

  Summary Category Data Court Supreme Court of India Case Number C.A. No.-012685-012685 – 2025 Diary Number 57192/2024 Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR Precedent Value Binding authority Overrules / Affirms Overrules Calcutta High Court judgment; affirms established precedents Type […]