The Court framed principles for environmental compensation under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 and directed MoEF&CC to issue guidelines under Rule 17(2).
The Supreme Court held that Clause 19 of the mining contract was valid: no interest accrued on the security deposit during the contract, but interest was payable if it was retained beyond three months after termination.
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh SPE is not an “intelligence and security” organisation under the RTI Act, so the 25.08.2011 exemption was invalid.
The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court could entertain a BSF member’s writ petition under Article 226(1) and that forum non conveniens was misapplied.
The Supreme Court held that similarly situated Work Charged and Muster Roll workers could not be denied regularization under Assam’s 2005 policy merely because they were not appointed against sanctioned posts.
The Supreme Court held that the Visitor, as appointing authority for the First Registrar, could approve termination under the transitional provisions and the General Clauses Act, but left the High Court’s operative directions undisturbed.
The Supreme Court held that a waitlisted candidate already recommended under the old Uttar Pradesh Act could not seek a fresh posting under Section 13(4) after the new Act commenced.
The High Court Division Bench erred by reappreciating evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities which were founded on relevant material and, after independent forensic verification by Bihar Police, established that the two identities were the same person; the dismissal was the result of a fair and lawful enquiry and is restored; the Patna District appointment (Order No.10524 of 2007) and the appointment of "Santosh Kumar" as Constable in Bihar are quashed; competent police authorities are directed to examine and take…
The Supreme Court held that Indian Railways does not qualify as a deemed distribution licensee under the Electricity Act because its electric traction and distribution installations are confined to captive operational use and do not perform the statutory function of supplying electricity to consumers in an area of supply; accordingly Indian Railways is a consumer for electricity procured through open access and is liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge; draft legislative proposals do not alter this statutory position.
On the facts the Court found EIL to be the dominant actor in the group and that the three lessee subsidiaries were fronts; lifting the corporate veil was appropriate; the development rights/lands in question were to be treated in light of that economic reality, the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma were restored, GNIDA was disentitled to penal interest due to its failure to monitor and submit timely claims, GNIDA must recalculate dues excluding penal interest/penal charges and Alpha and Roma must clear principal dues over 24 months and then effect registrations as sub-lessees; timelines for…