Legal 60

From safeguarding individual rights to defining the limits of administrative authority, the Bombay High Court delivered several significant judgments in 2026. This Legal Bites Year Update highlights important rulings that addressed diverse legal issues, clarified statutory provisions and reinforced the principles of justice and fairness. Important Judgments of Bombay High Court (2026)Legal Bites Year Update

An arbitral tribunal derives its authority from the agreement between the parties. While arbitration provides an alternative to conventional litigation, it does not confer upon arbitrators an unrestricted power to reshape contractual obligations, revise agreed consideration, or grant relief that the parties never contemplated. The freedom to resolve disputes outside the courtroom remains inseparable from

University of Delhi has invited online applications for the recruitment of Legal Assistant under Advertisement No. R&P/326/2026. Candidates holding a recognised professional law degree with at least three years of prescribed legal experience can apply. The last date for submitting applications is 20 November 2026 or within two weeks from the date of publication of

Patna, 31 October 2026: The Cyber Security and Digital Forensic Centre (CSDFC) of Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna, in collaboration with the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Patna, organised a two-day guest lecture series on 30 and 31 October 2026. The series brought together distinguished experts from law enforcement and the cyber

INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment reaffirming the absolute statutory bar against granting land ownership rights over communal water bodies and public poramboke lands. In the cases of S. Gururaj v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors. along with connected appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 13629–13631 of

INTRODUCTION In State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram, 2026 INSC 1169, decided on 28 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, examined the extent to which an alleged procedural irregularity in communicating the grounds of arrest could justify the grant of regular bail. The Judgment addresses

INTRODUCTION In V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 1172, decided on 28 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, examined the legal principles governing cases of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly the burden of proof on the Prosecution and the

INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas, 2026 INSC 1160, delivered an important Judgment on 27 October 2026 concerning the restrictions on grant of bail to foreign nationals accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Court examined the

Introduction Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”) prescribes timelines within which an arbitral tribunal must make its award and empowers the Court to extend those timelines. A persistent question has been whether the Court can still extend the mandate once the prescribed period has lapsed and more pointedly, once the