This Connect provides a brief overview of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Larsen & Toubro case where it examined whether an arbitral tribunal could award pre-award...

The Allahabad High Court in Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. v. State of U.P., held that the writ jurisdiction can be invoked to safeguard existing rights and not for seeking to establish any new right.

The Gujarat High Court in the Sadgunbhai Semulbhai Solanki case1 held that depriving a person of their leave encashment, which is equivalent to their salary, violates their constitutional right.

The Supreme Court ("SC"), in Leela and others case,1 held that a will is not deemed valid simply by being registered. Rather, it must be proven in compliance with Section 682 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 633 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Kerala High Court, in Hareesh M.S. case, observed that Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 will apply only when there is an allegation of sexual harassment.

Madhya Pradesh High Court ("HC"), in Vikram Singh case,1 held that violation of service rules does not fall within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.

The Allahabad High Court (HC) in the Shivakar Singh case denied relief to employee Shivakar Singh (Singh) of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).

The Supreme Court, in the K. Gopi case, held on April 7, 2025 that Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority cannot adjudicate on the seller's title document to execute transfer property and refuse registration in the absence of the same.

The Kerala High Court (HC), in the case of Sakkir Hussain,1 held that it can exercise jurisdiction over the order of compensation by the Commissioner when there is a lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The Bombay High Court on March 23, 2025 in the Arun Firodiya case, opined that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court orders even pending their appeal.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Yaad Das Sahu case held that even for contractual employment, if any stigmatic termination order is to be passed, it must be done after holding proper enquiry and giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee.

The Delhi High Court ("HC") in Baikuntha Nath Das case1 held voluntary retirement could not be cancelled.

The High Court of Kerala ("HC"), in the Sanjeevan Swamy case, held that in ex parte proceedings, the Court can issue an order in favour of the party present only if they prove their rights or the opposite party's liability.

The Delhi High Court (HC), in the Broad Peak case,1 dealt with a case where two companies held trademark registration over an identical trademark.