Landmark Cases

In the case of Advanced Technology Products Inc. vs Oriental Export Corporation, the appellant challenged an ex parte order that allowed the respondent to register a suit without fulfilling the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under the Commercial Courts Act. The appellant, a corporation based in Ohio, faced quality issues with products supplied by the respondent, leading to a safety recall. The court ultimately ruled that the review application was invalid due to lack of notice to the appellant, thereby upholding the original order that required mediation before proceeding with the suit.

2026-02-23

R. I. CHAGLA, J.

Gaurav Enterprises filed a writ petition against GTB Hospital challenging the bid documents for security services, claiming that the conditions imposed were unreasonable and violated regulatory requirements. The petitioner argued that the required number of security supervisors was insufficient and that the minimum turnover requirement excluded eligible bidders. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the bid documents and directing the hospital to comply with legal standards regarding security personnel ratios. This decision emphasizes the importance of adherence to regulatory norms in public procurement processes.

Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a radiologist, challenged the legality of a complaint filed against him under the PCPNDT Act regarding illegal sex determination practices. The High Court dismissed his petition to quash the complaint, leading to his appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to the improper authorization of the sting operation that led to the charges. Consequently, the Court quashed the complaint against Dr. Garg, citing a precedent that deemed similar orders void.

Bhupesh Ramdas Warke filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his claim for pensionary benefits based on his father's service as a Safai Coolie. The petitioner argued that his father's service should qualify for pension benefits despite not meeting the standard ten-year requirement, citing extreme hardship faced by his family. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing the merits of his claim and the unjust denial of benefits by the authorities. The court emphasized the need for consideration of the family's circumstances and the applicable pension rules.

2026-02-23

Smt. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.

Shobha Namdev Sonavane appealed against the Bombay High Court's decision to grant bail to Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and others, who were accused of assaulting her husband leading to his death. The appeal highlighted concerns about the High Court's reliance on extraneous factors in its bail decision, particularly given the serious nature of the charges including murder and caste-based violence. The Supreme Court ultimately found that the High Court had erred in its judgment and granted bail under inappropriate considerations, warranting the cancellation of the bail order.

The case involves New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging a Delhi High Court decision that imposed a penalty on the insurer under the Employees' Compensation Act for failing to pay compensation in a timely manner. The deceased, a commercial driver, died during employment, leading to claims by his legal heirs for compensation. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on the liability for the penalty, focusing on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the responsibilities of the employer and insurer.

2026-02-23

Justice Aravind Kumar

The case involves a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the interpretation of the Armed Forces Tribunal's (AFT) powers regarding contempt and implementation of its orders. The court examined whether willful disobedience of AFT orders could be classified as contempt under Section 19 of the AFT Act. The High Court upheld the AFT's authority to punish for contempt, emphasizing the need for compliance with its orders to maintain its dignity and functionality. The judgment clarifies the scope of the AFT's powers in ensuring its orders are executed.

2026-02-23

Justice C. Hari Shankar

The case involves Mwo Hfl Surendra Nath Singh challenging the Armed Force Tribunal's decision that denied him disability pension benefits for conditions developed during his service in the Indian Air Force. The petitioner argued that his health issues, including Primary Hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease, were aggravated by his military duties, while the Tribunal concluded they were not attributable to his service. The Delhi High Court found the Tribunal's reasoning unsustainable, emphasizing that the location of service (peace or field) does not determine the attributability of health conditions to military service. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the need for a causal connection between service conditions and health issues.

Sachin Nagpure challenged the rejection of his caste claim as 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The court found that the committee failed to properly evaluate the substantial documentary evidence supporting his claim, which included pre-Constitutional documents. The court ruled that the rejection based on the affinity test was irrelevant given the overwhelming evidence of tribal identity. Consequently, the court quashed the committee's order and recognized Sachin's caste claim.

Budhia Muduli sought appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after his land was acquired for a railway project. His application was initially rejected on the grounds that he was not the direct land loser but the grandson of the land owner. The court ultimately ruled that the Railway Board must comply with previous orders to consider his case, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under the law. The decision reinforces the applicability of rehabilitation policies to cases where land was acquired prior to the policy's enactment.

The case involves the Vidarbha Minority Education Society and other minority institutions challenging a directive from the Maharashtra Director of Education that required them to absorb surplus non-teaching staff as a condition for approval of their appointments. The court found this directive to be arbitrary and illegal, infringing on the rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the directive and ordering the state to grant the necessary approvals for appointments made by the minority institutions.

Raja J alias Regan was detained under the Karnataka Goonda Act for being a habitual offender. He challenged the legality of his detention, arguing that it violated procedural safeguards, including the failure to present him before an Advisory Board within the stipulated time. The High Court found that the detention order was not sustainable due to these procedural irregularities and ordered his release. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures in preventive detention cases.