#monetary compensation

The Allahabad High Court slashed a Rs. 5 lakh compensation award under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to Rs. 3 lakh, ruling that financial relief must be anchored in verifiable income and capacity to pay, not speculative assumptions. This sets a critical benchmark for magistrates across India, requiring concrete financial disclosure before awarding lump-sum compensation in domestic violence cases.

The Bombay High Court held the State liable for gross negligence leading to a patient’s death in Yerwada Mental Hospital, awarding Rs.22 lakh compensation by adapting motor accident claim principles to custodial death. This sets a precedent for calculating damages in mental health custodial cases, especially when dependents suffer permanent disability, reinforcing the state’s non-delegable duty under Article 21.

The Delhi High Court ruled that procedural defects in terminating casual workers do not automatically entitle them to reinstatement, especially when they are nearing retirement and reinstatement serves no meaningful purpose. Monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy in such cases, balancing statutory protections with practical realities of employment continuity.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that landowners under the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 cannot be compelled to accept Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation. The ruling mandates monetary compensation as a statutory right, reinforcing landowner autonomy in land acquisition disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy for illegally terminated daily wage workers, especially after a prolonged delay. Citing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, the Court awarded ₹3 lakh in monetary compensation, emphasizing that reinstatement should not be granted as a matter of course in such cases.

Bombay High Court rules that termination violating Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act remains illegal even post-superannuation, but reinstatement is impracticable. Instead, the court awards ₹2 lakh as just monetary compensation, setting a precedent for retired workers denied procedural fairness.

Bombay HC rules that an employer's failure to produce salary and attendance records-when in its control-shifts the burden of proof, entitling superannuated workers to monetary compensation for illegal termination. The judgment reinforces that adverse inference applies even where continuous service is disputed, offering a critical remedy for workers denied reinstatement.

Bombay High Court holds that TDR cannot replace monetary compensation under Section 35 of MMRDA Act; violation of Article 300A renders acquisition illegal.