Kerala High Court clarifies Travancore Devaswom Board's authority in approving temple renovation rituals, fund collection coupons, and staff appointments under constitutional mandates.
Calcutta High Court rules that recruitment authorities must disclose marks and categories of candidates before Physical Measurement and Efficiency Tests to ensure transparency in selection processes.
CAT holds that merger of government cadres is a policy decision beyond judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of natural justice.
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) dismisses review petition, holding that review jurisdiction cannot re-litigate merits where vacancies are filled and no actionable relief remains.
Bombay High Court holds that writ petitions cannot be used to claim monetary compensation when a civil suit is pending; petitioner must exhaust alternate remedies first.
Rajasthan High Court clarifies that judicial review under Article 226 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of punishment unless shockingly disproportionate.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that suppression of material facts in writ petitions can lead to recall of orders, restoring the petition for fresh consideration.
Supreme Court rules that in public utility projects, proof of actual loss is not required for awarding liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award for failing to explain denial of interest and costs, affirming that unreasoned awards conflict with public policy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
CAT Bangalore upholds that disciplinary authorities are sole judges of facts in departmental inquiries; courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
The Kerala High Court holds that review petitions under CPC Order XLVII Rule 1 cannot reargue merits already decided; clarifies limits of 'error apparent on face of record'.
Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that writ courts cannot reappreciate evidence or upset factual findings under Article 226 unless errors are manifest on record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to adjudicate disputed facts or award compensation in medical negligence cases.
CAT upholds that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute punishment in departmental proceedings unless it shocks the conscience or violates natural justice.