A small, curated selection of freshly-decided Supreme Court and High Court judgments we think advocates should know about — not everything we index, just what's genuinely notable. Every quote below is verbatim; every case links back to the source judgment. We add new notes every few days as the cases come in.
CuratedOnly what is notable VerbatimQuoted from the judgment SourcedEvery note links back
A serious offence alone cannot justify premature-release denial when Rule 358 factors and reformation evidence are ignored.
Writ relief was refused for want of privity, disputed facts and unexplained delay; other remedies remain open.
Spousal assets had to be disclosed; erroneous cognizance under the RPA was curable under Section 465 CrPC.
A Children’s Court must decide, by a reasoned order, whether a child is to be tried as a child or as an adult.
PF and ESPP contributions cannot automatically reduce income for maintenance; child and spousal maintenance enhanced.
Himachal Pradesh High Court corrected Section 374 to Section 372, holding that a wrong statutory reference does not defeat jurisdiction.
Rear-end collision did not establish contributory negligence; parents received Rs.80,000 for filial consortium.
Filing a compliant charge-sheet within 60 or 90 days extinguishes default bail; missing supply copies does not revive it.
A compromise affecting a party’s substantial rights needs written consent or express authority; delay alone cannot preserve an unlawful decree.
Section 244 CrPC does not require a Magistrate to record evidence before committing a Sessions-triable complaint case.
For self-employed victims, income from up to three preceding ITRs is a reference point, tested against business circumstances.
Electrocution claims involving disputed facts belong in an alternative forum; liability is strict, not absolute, and MVA multipliers do not apply.
Reliance on fake or hallucinated AI-generated precedents renders an adjudicatory decision legally unsustainable.
Amalgamation transferring tenancy rights and possession can trigger eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Revenue could not tax a notional 33% installation component of composite ATM contracts executed before 1 June 2007.
Termination requires proof of knowing suppression and a case-specific assessment; reinstatement ordered with 50% backwages.
The Supreme Court treats a film-printing laser imager as an accessory, not diagnostic apparatus, where it serves equipment across CTH 9018 and 9022.
Jharkhand High Court applies Swaran Singh, affirms pay-and-recover, and recalculates compensation using future prospects and consortium.
A member cannot split a redevelopment challenge between the Co-operative and Civil Courts when third-party rights have crystallised.
A preliminary fact-finding enquiry and an alleged confession cannot, without a charge-sheet and opportunity to defend, sustain dismissal from service.