Saturday, 8 August 2026

The dispute. Karnataka agriculturists whose land was acquired under a 1999 notification received Rs 3 lakh per acre from the Reference Court and Rs 5 lakh from the High Court, while a parallel set of claimants had already secured Rs 6.5 lakh per acre in Ravindra before the Supreme Court. After a review petition failed in 2015, the appellants filed Special Leave Petitions in 2017 accumulating a delay of 4,427 days.

The reasoning. The Court held that Article 142 permits condonation of even abnormal delay when bona-fide landowners seek parity with an award already made for the same notification.

In the circumstances of this case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we extend the compensation determined by this Court in Ravindra (supra) to the Appellants as well.

For your practice. Once a higher rate is fixed for a specific notification, parity claims survive any delay under Article 142, but interest does not accrue over the delayed period.

The order. Compensation fixed at Rs 6,50,000 per acre with statutory benefits; interest denied for the entire 4,427-day delay period; Civil Appeals allowed and all pending applications disposed of.

Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Case

LACHCHAPPA vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UKP, BAGALKOT .

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010250-010252 - 2026 · 2026:INSC:815 · 07.08.2026

Bench

S.v.n. Bhatti, N.v. Anjaria

The dispute. The Union of India unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator under a defence-procurement contract with Goodrich Foodtech after terminating four supply contracts for alleged defects and forfeiting bank guarantees worth Rs 2.49 crore. The Union petitioned under Section 34 to set aside the award.

The reasoning. The Court held that the proviso to Section 12(5) requires an express agreement in writing, not an agreement to be inferred from conduct, and that participation in arbitral proceedings after an ineligible appointment does not cure the jurisdictional defect.

The expression 'express agreement in writing' refers to an agreement made in words as opposed to an agreement which is to be inferred by conduct.

For your practice. Arbitration clauses in government and commercial contracts that vest appointment power unilaterally in one party are now ineffective.

The order. Award dated 27 April 2022 set aside and declared a nullity. Termination letter dated 21 August 2018, freezing letters dated 6 September and 24 October 2018, and debarment letter dated 20 November 2018 all quashed.

Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

UNION OF INDIA vs M/S GOODRICH FOODTECH LTD

Citation

Delhi High Court · O.M.P. (COMM)-375/2022 · 2026:DHC:6441 · 06.08.2026

Bench

Subramonium Prasad

The dispute. Rani Parween, married to Md. Mubarak Ansari in 2013 under Muslim law, left the matrimonial home in 2022 after alleged physical cruelty and threats; she also obtained a Khula from the Qazi-e-Shariat. The wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, arguing the decree was perverse for ignoring cruelty evidence.

The reasoning. The court held that the Family Court's findings were perverse under the Arulvelu test because material evidence of cruelty, including a police complaint and the Khula, was ignored entirely.

For your practice. A restitution decree is vulnerable on appeal wherever the trial court omits to weigh cruelty evidence or apply the reasonableness test.

The order. The division bench set aside the Family Court decree dated 06.08.2025 and the order dated 19.08.2025 as perverse, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.

Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984

Case

Rani Parween v. Md. Mubarak Ansari

Citation

Jharkhand High Court · FA/202/2025 · 2026:JHHC:23476-DB · 07.08.2026

Bench

Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

The dispute. Radhasyam Banerjee and two others, accused of breaking a boundary wall in 2013, were summoned by an Additional Judicial Magistrate in Arambagh based on a police investigation report filed more than two years after it was ordered, prepared by a subordinate ASI. The petitioners filed a criminal revision before the Calcutta High Court, arguing the magistrate's order was cryptic.

The reasoning. The court held that a magistrate must apply judicial mind and record a reasoned prima-facie finding before issuing summons under Section 204.

For your practice. Where the magistrate's order issuing summons contains no reasoning and the investigation report was prepared by an unauthorised delegate, a revision under Section 482 will succeed.

The order. The Calcutta High Court set aside the summons order dated 14 March 2016 and the subsequent summons of 2 March 2018, quashed the criminal proceeding against all petitioners, and disposed of all connected applications.

Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

Radhasyam Banerjee & ors. v. State of West Bengal & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/3430/2018 · 2024:CHC-AS:2511 · 07.08.2026

Bench

Chaitali Chatterjee Das

The reasoning. A husband's gross earning capacity, not his net income after voluntary loan repayments, is the benchmark for permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA.

For your practice. Lawyers must now assess a husband's gross earning capacity rather than his reduced net income after loan repayments when arguing permanent alimony. Voluntary loans taken during litigation cannot be used to lower maintenance, and courts will apply the multi-factor test from Supreme Court precedents to ensure a fair quantum.

The order. Rs 40,00,000 to the wife, Rs 25,00,000 each to the son and daughter (total Rs 90,00,000) payable in four equal installments over 12 months, first installment within one month; travel expense of Rs 25,000 payable; marriage dissolved; lower court order of 19 Feb 2025 quashed.

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Case

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tarun v. Anita Kumari

Citation

Jharkhand High Court · FA/133/2025 · 2026:JHHC:23530-DB · 06.08.2026

Bench

Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

The dispute. Ajitnath Suppliers Private Limited faced an ex-parte addition of Rs 1.23 crore under Section 68 for AY 2018-19, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a speaking order. The company challenged the cost condition and the automatic confirmation clause before the Calcutta High Court under Section 260A.

The reasoning. The discretion under Section 254(1) to pass orders 'as it thinks fit' does not permit the Tribunal to erect a financial barrier to the statutory right of appeal.

For your practice. Any ITAT order that makes cost payment a condition for a remand's survival can be challenged under Section 260A.

The order. Cost reduced to Rs 25,000, to be deposited with Legal Aid Services, Calcutta High Court, within four weeks; the automatic confirmation clause is quashed; the CIT(A) must pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) within twelve weeks.

Section 254(1), Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Ajitnath Suppliers Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · ITAT/120/2026 · 07.08.2026

Bench

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Uday Kumar

The dispute. Ashraj Ali died on 27 January 2024; the Assessing Officer, unaware of the death, issued a Section 148 notice for AY 2019-20 and completed an ex parte assessment on 23 January 2025. His legal heir Shafiq challenged both the notice and the assessment order before the ITAT. The CIT(A) remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication; the legal heir then appealed to the ITAT, producing the death certificate on record.

The reasoning. A Section 148 notice must be served on a living person; issuing it on a deceased assessee without notice to the legal heir is a jurisdictional defect that voids both the notice and the assessment, and cannot be cured under Section 292B.

For your practice. Before issuing any reopening notice, the department must verify whether the assessee is alive.

The order. The appeal was allowed; the Section 148 notice dated 10 March 2026 and the assessment order for AY 2019-20 were quashed as void ab initio. Remaining grounds of appeal were left open.

Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

ASHRAJ ALI, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHAFIQ v. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Citation

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN BENCH · ITA No.258/DDN/2026 · 07.08.2026

Bench

Mahavir Singh, Sanjay Awasthi