Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 9, 2026 To February 15, 2026

Judgments₹2 Crore Compensation For Faulty Haircut Unjustified : Supreme Court Asks ITC Maurya To Pay 25 Lakhs To ModelCase Details: ITC Limited v. Aashna RoyCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut.A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.It may be recalled that in 2023, the Supreme Court had set aside the compensation awarded by the NCDRC, holding that the respondent–model had failed to place material on record to substantiate her claim, and had remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh determination of the quantum of compensation.Delay In Filing Appeals Under S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Can Be Condoned: Supreme CourtCase Details: Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill LimitedCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130The Supreme Court (February 9) held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.“Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act.”, the court held.A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma heard the batch of pleas where the controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations by various High Courts on whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides 60 days to file an appeal, extendable by another 60 days, impliedly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers courts to condone delay on showing sufficient cause.Grant Of Bail Should Not Be Subject To Deposit Of Money : Supreme Court ReiteratesCase Details: Prantik Kumar & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.4297/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 131The Supreme Court reiterated that when Courts grant regular or anticipatory bail, it should not be subject to the deposit of any amount. In this case, the Court set aside the conditional bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court and ordered that, in the event of arrest, the accused persons shall be released on bail. It also asked the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the place before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.As per the brief facts, the two accused persons, father and son, were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a cheating case. The complaint alleged that the accused persons failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from him. A first information report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused persons applied to the Sessions Court for bail but were denied. Pursuant to which, they approached the High Court, which passed two orders directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 has been made to the complainant. Subsequently, the accused persons sought time, and the High Court passed another order granting them time.In both orders, dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment is not filed, the anticipatory bail application will be dismissed without further reference.Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident ClaimsCase Details: v. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which excludes non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of “love and affection” as a separate head while determining compensation in motor accident cases.A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma observed that while it remains bound by the Constitution Bench decision, it harbours unease with that aspect of the ruling which holds that the loss suffered due to deprivation of love and affection in fatal road accident cases cannot be awarded separately while computing compensation.In Pranay Sethi, it was held that non-pecuniary damages should be awarded only under three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It disapproved the grant of damages for "loss of love and affection" under a separate head.High Courts Cannot Nullify Arbitral Proceedings While Appointing Substitute Arbitrator : Supreme CourtCase Details: Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt....

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 9, 2026 To February 15, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags