Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: June, 2026

Judgments'Cost Of Demolition Catastrophic' : Supreme Court Rules Against Demolition Of Navi Mumbai Mall, Allows Regularisation On Cost PaymentCase: K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 575The Supreme Court held that demolition of a shopping mall and hotel built on a plot allotted through an irregular process would be against public interest where the illegality can be remedied through a stringent financial recovery mechanism.A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside a Bombay High Court direction requiring restoration of the land to its original condition, observing that demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after 17 years would cause catastrophic and irreparable social and economic harm.Railway Servant Is Central Govt Employee, Railway Service Entitled To Weightage In New Service : Supreme CourtCase Title: BENCY JOHN v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 576The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Railway Service would be treated as a 'civil post' under the Central Government, and therefore ex-Railway employees are entitled to weightage for the services rendered by them in Railways in pay revision, while joining a different new service“…a railway servant is also a Government servant though it is not the CCS (Conduct) Rules but the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules that would apply to him.”, the court held.Non-Supply Of ACRs, Destruction Of Service Records Caused Prejudice : Supreme Court Grants Enhanced Pension To Retired Railway DoctorCase : Dr Indira Saranath v. Union of IndiaCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 577The Supreme Court granted notional promotion and enhanced pensionary benefits to a retired Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS) officer, holding that the non-supply of her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), destruction of her service records during pendency of litigation and irregular assessment of her performance had caused prejudice to her claim for promotion.A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Indira Saranath and set aside the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court which had upheld the denial of her promotion to the post of Chief Medical Director in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG).Dependant Mother Who's Ineligible For State Ex-Gratia Entitled To Separate Share In Motor Accident Compensation : Supreme Court Case: Sarla Devi & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 578The Supreme Court ruled that while ex gratia financial assistance received by the family of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, must be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent duplication of benefits, such deduction cannot defeat the independent entitlement of a dependent mother who is not eligible to receive assistance under the state scheme.A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the judgment while partly allowing an appeal filed by the family members of Haryana Police constable Sachin Kumar, who died in a road accident in 2012.CPC | Defendant Cannot Retract Pleadings By Filing Additional Written Statement : Supreme CourtCase: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali GhoshCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 579The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be permitted to radically alter her stand in a civil suit through an additional written statement after the trial has commenced, particularly when the new plea is inconsistent with the original defence.The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that allowed a defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of a civil suit, holding that a party cannot use such a pleading to introduce a completely contradictory case under the garb of an additional written statement after the commencement of trial.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application, observing that the attempt was a clear abuse of process aimed at circumventing the restrictions on amendment of pleadings after trial has begun.Courts Have Sometimes Failed Arbitration In India; Judicial Interference Often A Cure Without A Disease: Supreme Court Case Title: MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. M/S JABALPUR CORRIDOR PVT. LTD.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 580The Supreme Court criticized the over-interference by the judiciary in the arbitration proceedings, where, despite having secured an award in 2014, the award holder even by 2026 has not received the fruits of the award.The Court observed that while arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism has not failed in India, judicial intervention has at times undermined its effectiveness, adversely...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: June, 2026

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: June, 2026

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers