https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/18/bombay-high-court-sets-aside-icc-order-in-posh-case-holds-shared-public-autorickshaw-not-a-workplace-under-sexual-harassment-act/Lawcutoren2026-06-18T17:12:12+00:00Bombay High Court Sets Aside ICC Order in POSH Case – Holds Shared Public Autorickshaw Not a “Workplace” Under Sexual Harassment Acthttps://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-18t223957.769.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/18/jk-high-court-upholds-notional-appointment-seniority-old-pension-scheme-benefits-for-wrongfully-excluded-candidate/Lawcutoren2026-06-18T17:00:01+00:00J&K High Court Upholds Notional Appointment, Seniority & Old Pension Scheme Benefits for Wrongfully Excluded Candidateequality in public employment, Legal news India, Recruitment Irregularities, Justice Shahzad Azeem, service law India, Jammu and Kashmir High Court, service jurisprudence, Administrative Law India, Article 14 Constitution of India, WP(C) No 373 of 2026, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, State of Jammu and Kashmir v Raghu Singh Jandla, Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu, NPS Deductions Refund, Jammu Bench, Fairness in Government Recruitment, Public Employment Law, Raghu Singh Jandla Case, Employment Rights of Candidates, CAT Jammu Bench, Old Pension Scheme, Promotion Benefits in Service Law, Arbitrary Exclusion from Selection, Retrospective Appointment, Power Development Department J&K, RBA Category Recruitment, Notional Fixation of Seniority, Notional Appointment, Resident of Backward Area Category, Judicial Review of Recruitment Process, Merit Based Appointment, Rule 24 J&K Civil Services Rules, Government Job Litigation, OPS Benefits, Selection Process Challenge, Equitable Relief in Service Matters, Junior Engineer Electrical, Court Ordered Appointment, Merit List Dispute, New Pension Scheme, Seniority Refixation, Pension Entitlement Case, Wrongful Denial of Appointment, Public Service Recruitment, Meritorious Candidate Rights, Public Employment Equality, Recruitment Litigation, Constitutional Equality Principle, Consequential Promotion Benefits, Equitable Exception in Seniority Law, Justice Sindhu Sharma, Pre SRO 400 Pension Benefits, Delay Attributable to Authorities, Public Sector Employment, SRO 400 of 2009, Notional Seniority, Employment Litigation India, Binding Supreme Court Precedents, Judicial Protection of Employee Rights, Public Administration Law, Retrospective Service Benefits, Retrospective Benefits in Service Law, Public Service Commission Litigation, Consequential Service Benefits, J&K Civil Services Rules, Government Recruitment Case Law, Seniority from Date of Appointment, Promotion Rights, Judicial Remedies in Service Matters, State Liability in Recruitment, Wrongful Exclusion from Merit List, C Jayachandran v State of Kerala, Government Employees Pension Rights, Government Employee Rights, Government Service Benefits, Jammu Legal News, Supreme Court Service Law Precedents, Service Benefits Restoration, Service Matter Judgment, Pension Scheme Litigation, Service Law Precedent, Seniority and Promotion Law, Government Recruitment Policy, Wrongful Appointment Denial, Career Progression Benefits, Government Employment Dispute, Old Pension Scheme Eligibility, Pension and Seniority Litigation, Recruitment Dispute, Public Employment Fairness, Appointment from Select List, Recruitment and Seniority Disputes, Writ Petition Dismissed, Common Select List Integrity, Service Tribunal Decisions, Administrative Arbitrariness, Seniority Dispute, Public Employment Rights, Equality of Opportunity in Employment, CAT Order Upheld, Service Law Judgment 2026, Merit Candidate Protection, Sanjay Dhar v Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, High Court Judgment April 2026, J&K Judiciary, Employment Law Update, Government Employee Seniority, Constitutional Remedies in Service Law.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-18t222748.234.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/18/gujarat-high-court-upholds-compensation-award-in-electrocution-death-case-reiterates-principle-of-absolute-liability-on-electricity-companies/Lawcutoren2026-06-18T16:49:17+00:00Gujarat High Court Upholds Compensation Award in Electrocution Death Case – Reiterates Principle of Absolute Liability on Electricity CompaniesGujarat high court, Civil Appeal Dismissed, Electrocution Death Case, Justice J C Doshi, Absolute Liability Doctrine, Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd v Naniba wd/o Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha, Law of Torts India, Civil Suit for Compensation, 9 Percent Interest Award, Electricity Company Liability, Fatal Accident Compensation, Gujarat High Court Judgment 2026, Electricity Liability, Electrical Infrastructure Safety, M C Mehta v Union of India, First Appeal under CPC, Public Utility Liability, Victim Compensation Law, 2026 GLHC 34770, Principal Senior Civil Judge Bhuj, Power Transmission Safety, Compensation for Death, Hazardous Operations Liability, Electricity Board Liability, Compensation Award Upheld, Kutch District Court, Electrocution Compensation Case, Dangerous Activities Doctrine, Legal News Gujarat, R First Appeal No 1310 of 2012, Liability Without Fault, Hazardous Industry Liability, Electricity Distribution Safety, Electricity Accident Claims, Electrocution Jurisprudence, Widow Compensation Claim, GETCO Liability, Public Utility Negligence, Strict Liability Principle, Indian Civil Law, Strict Liability India, Infrastructure Safety Obligations, Duty to Maintain Transmission Lines, Hazardous Activity Law, Utility Negligence Claims, Utility Company Responsibility, Tort Law India, First Appeal No 1310 of 2012, Judicial Precedents on Electricity Accidents, Safety Standards for Power Lines, Compensation for Electrocution Death, High Tension Line Accident, Special Civil Suit No 81 of 2007, Victim Centric Jurisprudence, HSEB v Ram Nath, Civil Liability for Electrocution, Consumer Safety Law, Interest on Compensation, Transmission Line Negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, Rural Electrocution Case, Public Safety Obligations, Rural Infrastructure Litigation, Electrical Hazard Cases, Section 96 CPC, GETCO Case, Contributory Negligence Defence Rejected, Compensation to Legal Heirs, Negligence by Electricity Company, Live Wire Contact Death, Civil Damages for Electrocution, Gujarat Court Decisions, Wrongful Death Compensation, Transmission Line Maintenance, Absolute Liability India, Electrocution Case Law India, Fatal Electrocution, Live Wire Accident, Compensation Jurisprudence, Indian Tort Law, Electricity Law India, Infrastructure Negligence Litigation, Legal Heirs Rights, Liability of State Utilities, Transmission Company Duty of Care, Safety of Electrical Installations, Tortious Liability, Electricity Accident Compensation, High Voltage Transmission Line, Public Law and Compensation, Non Delegable Duty, Landmark Electrocution Judgment, Fatal Injury Compensation, Civil Compensation Claims, 66 KV Transmission Line, Public Utility Accountability, Accident Compensation Law, Gujarat Judiciary, High Court Compensation Judgment, Power Sector Legal Compliance, Electricity Company Negligence, Gujarat Legal News, Legal Update June 2026, Consumer Protection and Safety.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-18t221743.634.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/18/jharkhand-high-court-dismisses-second-appeal-upholds-ex-parte-decree-in-title-suit-concerning-ancestral-land-and-pm-awas-yojana-allotment/Lawcutoren2026-06-18T16:37:35+00:00Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Second Appeal – Upholds Ex-Parte Decree in Title Suit Concerning Ancestral Land and PM Awas Yojana AllotmentJharkhand High Court, Land Dispute, Supreme Court Precedent, Code of Civil Procedure, property dispute, Documentary Evidence, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, First Appellate Court, Ancestral Property, Sufficient Cause, property documentation, Legal news India, judicial precedent, Title Suit, property law india, appreciation of evidence, Appellate Jurisdiction, civil litigation india, Identification of Property, Property Rights India, Land Records Dispute, Civil Procedure Law, Property Law Update, Scope of Second Appeal, Section 100 CPC, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Landmark Property Judgment, Evidence Appreciation, Indian Property Law, Ex Parte Decree Challenge, Ex Parte Proceedings, Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, legal developments India, Court Judgment Analysis, 2026 JHHC 17016, Second Appeal No 136 of 2026, Ranchi High Court, Ex Parte Decree, Service of Notice, Registered Conveyance Deed, Revenue Records, Recovery of Possession, Second Appeal, Sale Deed of 1971, Adverse Claim to Property, Plot 64 vs Plot 94, Civil Justice System, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Substantial Question of Law, Government Housing Scheme, Findings of Fact, PMAY Allotment, Ex Parte Judgment, Knowledge of Suit, House Site Allotment, Jharkhand Judiciary, Sale Deed Evidence, Ranchi Property Case, Rights of Property Owners, Procedural Law India, Jharkhand Legal News, Civil Appeal Dismissed, Appellate Court Judgment, Civil Litigation Practice, Land Possession Case, Burden of Proof in Civil Cases, Civil Procedure Jurisprudence, Appeal under CPC, Boundary and Title Issues, Title Recovery Suit, Family Partition, Defendant Non Appearance, Limited Scope of Section 100 CPC, Judicial Restraint in Second Appeal, Title and Possession, Land Litigation Jharkhand, Civil Court Judgment, High Court Judgment June 2026, Legal Remedies in Property Disputes, Land Ownership Claim, Valid Service of Summons, Possession Dispute, Due Diligence in Land Transactions, Land Ownership Documents, Parimal v Veena, Plot Number Dispute, Concurrent Findings Doctrine, Ranchi Court Cases, Summons Service, Civil Court Procedure, Real Estate Litigation, Real Property Disputes, Property Title Verification, Additional Evidence in Appeal, Land Rights and Ownership, Civil Appeals India, Litigation Strategy in Property Cases.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-18t220607.604.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/17/rajasthan-high-court-quashes-jdas-arbitrary-withdrawal-of-ots-flyover-work-order-and-re-tendering-of-dpr-major-relief-to-jcl-infra/Lawcutoren2026-06-17T10:51:40+00:00Rajasthan High Court Quashes JDA’s Arbitrary Withdrawal of OTS Flyover Work Order and Re-tendering of DPR – Major Relief to JCL Infraaudi alteram partem, rajasthan High court, Article 19(1)(g), principles of natural justice, administrative fairness, Violation of Natural Justice, contract enforcement, State Instrumentality, commercial litigation india, High Court judgment 2026, legitimate expectation doctrine, legal news Rajasthan, Contract Law India, Rajasthan legal news, Administrative Law India, JCL Infra Case, Jaipur High Court, JDA Jaipur, OTS Flyover Project, Construction Law India, Contract Termination, Writ Petition in Contractual Matters, Reasoned Order Requirement, Rajasthan Infrastructure Projects, Tender Dispute, Public Law Remedies, Jaipur Development Authority, Fresh Tender Notice, Public Sector Contracts, Flyover Construction Jaipur, Notice Inviting Bid, Contractual Disputes with Government, Site Handover Issues, Government Contracts India, Infrastructure Litigation, Re-tendering Process, Judicial Intervention in Tenders, DPR Tender, JLN Marg Jaipur, Arbitrary State Action, Contractual Remedies, Construction Contract Dispute, Public Procurement Law, EPC Project Dispute, State Action Review, Construction Industry Legal Update, Jaipur Development Authority Case, Development Authority Litigation, Public Authority Obligations, Urban Infrastructure Development, Approval Delay by Authority, NIB Challenge, Tender Law India, Contract Performance Dispute, Judicial Review of Contracts, Legitimate Business Expectation, Indian Contract Jurisprudence, Opportunity of Hearing, Contract Extensions, Civil Writ Petition No 8120 of 2025, Promissory Estoppel, Public Procurement Transparency, Contractor Rights, Non-Speaking Order, Tender Cancellation Case, Government Contract Termination Rules, Infrastructure Project Delays, Fair Tendering Process, Civil Writ Petition No 17571 of 2024, Government Project Contracts, Fairness in Government Contracts, Legitimate Expectation in Public Contracts, Detailed Project Report, Article 14 Constitution of India, Public Works Contract, Rajasthan High Court Judgment June 2026, JDA Tender Case, Rajasthan Court Judgment, Contractual Rights Against State, Judicial Protection of Contractors, Arbitrary Tender Withdrawal, Contract Cancellation by Government, Arbitrary Exercise of Power, Fair Administrative Action, Public Procurement Litigation, Infrastructure Law India, Withdrawal of Contract, Rule of Law in Procurement, Government Accountability, Contractual Natural Justice, EPC Contractor Rights, Administrative Decision Making, Promissory Estoppel Against Government, Transparency in Tender Process, Public Infrastructure Disputes, Public Law and Contracts, Price Variation Claims, Project Development Jaipur, Judicial Review under Article 226, Government Tender Litigation, Government Infrastructure Litigation.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-17t161956.803.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/17/supreme-court-holds-madhya-pradesh-special-police-establishment-lokayukt-not-exempt-from-rti-act-notification-dated-25-08-2011-declared-invalid/Lawcutoren2026-06-17T08:17:43+00:00Supreme Court Holds Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Not Exempt from RTI Act – Notification Dated 25.08.2011 Declared Invalidsupreme court of India, Indian judiciary, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Rule Of Law, RTI Exemptions, Public Accountability, prevention of corruption act 1988, Legal news India, Supreme Court judgment 2026, sanction for prosecution, constitutional law India, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court Legal Update, Right to Information Act 2005, legal developments India, Court Judgment Analysis, Justice Atul S Chandurkar, Kamta Prasad Mishra Case, Corruption Investigation, Special Police Establishment Act 1947, Information Commission, Information Disclosure in Corruption Cases, Lokayukt Powers, Judicial Interpretation of RTI Act, Access to Government Information, Anti Corruption Investigation, State Information Commission, Anti Corruption Agency, Information Rights Jurisprudence, Exemption Notifications under RTI, Accountability of Investigative Agencies, Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up Lokayukt Adhiniyam 1981, Public Law Litigation, Scope of Section 24 RTI, Indian Legal Updates, Disclosure of Information, Government Transparency, Transparency in Public Administration, Government Accountability India, Ultra Vires Notification, Government Records Disclosure, Administrative Transparency, Landmark RTI Judgment, RTI Compliance, RTI and Investigations, Corruption Related Information Disclosure, Transparency in Anti Corruption Bodies, Administrative Law India, Investigative Agencies and RTI, Prosecution Sanction, RTI Exemption Clauses, Governance and Transparency, Supreme Court on RTI, Anti Corruption Framework India, Right to Know, Supreme Court RTI Decision, Citizen Rights under RTI, Transparency in Governance, Public Records Access, Access to Information, Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt, Transparency Laws India.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-17t134620.901.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/06/17/supreme-court-dismisses-writ-petition-challenging-rejection-of-rajya-sabha-nomination-over-non-disclosure-of-pending-criminal-case/Lawcutoren2026-06-17T06:31:01+00:00Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination Over Non-Disclosure of Pending Criminal Casesupreme court of India, Constitutional Law, Election Process, Indian judiciary, Election Commission of India, Election Petition, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, indian constitutional law, Legal news India, Supreme Court judgment 2026, Supreme Court election cases, constitutional remedies, Indian Legal News, Supreme Court Legal Update, Article 32 Constitution of India, Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejected, Meenakshi Natarajan v Election Commission of India, Rajya Sabha Election, Election Law India, Court Judgment Analysis, Ongoing Election Process, Article 226 and Election Matters, N P Ponnuswami Case, Indian National Congress, Public Law, Democratic Process, Election Compliance, Electoral Transparency, Form 26 Affidavit, N P Ponnuswami v Returning Officer, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha Election, Law Updates India, Legal Awareness India, Candidate Disclosure Requirements, Election Affidavit, Summons Issued by Court, Nomination Scrutiny, Constitutional Bar, Election Dispute Resolution, Election Nomination Rules, Article 329(b), Right to Contest Elections, Court Order 12 June 2026, Representation of the People Act 1951, Election Litigation, Returning Officer, Indian Election System, Criminal Proceedings Disclosure, Election Law Commentary, Free and Fair Elections, 2026 INSC 643, Rajya Sabha Elections 2026, Electoral Integrity, Pending Criminal Cases, Election Disputes, Constitutional Bench Precedent, Judicial Restraint in Elections, Nomination Paper Rejection, Rejection of Nomination, Mohinder Singh Gill Case, Election Schedule Protection, Election Law Precedent, Nomination Affidavit, Judicial Review in Elections, Statutory Right to Contest Election, Candidate Eligibility, Election Law News, Law and Democracy, Election Case Analysis, Disclosure Obligations of Candidates, Election Petition Remedy, Section 33A RPA, Election Jurisprudence, Election Transparency India, Election Challenge, Criminal Case Disclosure, Election Related Litigation, Supreme Court Updates, Article 32 Writ Petition, Election Commission Litigation, Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents, Election Law Updates, Electoral Governance, Judicial Non Interference, Justice Atul S Chandurkar, Electoral Reforms, Electoral Rights, Cognizance of Offence, Returning Officer Powers, Election Petition under RPA, Candidate Affidavit Requirements, Supreme Court Decision on Elections.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/website-2026-06-17t115944.963.png?w=150