Topic
Supreme Court precedent in Indian law refers to binding judicial rulings that lower courts must follow, establishing legal principles across jurisdictions.
The Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.
MP High Court holds that failure to provide written grounds of arrest under Section 483 BNSS invalidates custody, reinforcing Supreme Court precedent. The ruling mandates strict compliance with arrest procedures, impacting bail eligibility in criminal cases.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in taxable value for service tax before 2015 amendment to Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
Bombay High Court reaffirms that mediclaim payments cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. The court also reduced the interest rate from 15% to 12% per annum, citing lack of evidence and prevailing lower interest trends, setting a binding precedent for future compensation claims.
MP High Court mandates inclusion of past service periods in gratuity calculations, relying on the Supreme Court's Netram Sahu precedent. The State must decide the claim within 45 days, ensuring payment with applicable interest if entitled, or provide written reasons for denial.
The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has ruled that properties operated as hostels must be classified as residential for property tax purposes, not commercial, following the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish. This decision directly impacts municipal tax assessors across Tamil Nadu and empowers hostel operators to challenge misclassified commercial assessments, reinforcing the principle that actual use, not nominal designation, determines tax liability.
Bombay HC Nagpur Bench directs Maharashtra to consider OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 for general category seats in B.V.Sc. & A.H. admissions, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Anushka Rengunthwar. The decision reinforces constitutional equality in admission policies, impacting OCI applicants statewide.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided exclusively on the plaint's averments. Courts cannot consider evidence, prior arbitral awards, or defence pleas to invoke res judicata or estoppel at this stage, ensuring procedural fairness in civil litigation.
Tripura High Court rules that government employees are entitled to medical reimbursement for emergency treatment in empanelled hospitals without prior referral, prioritizing the factum of treatment over procedural formalities. The judgment underscores that denial of reimbursement solely on technical grounds violates the right to health and service benefits.