Today’s briefing is led by a Supreme Court ruling that protects taxpayers from reassessment proceedings started without a mandatory notice. The Supreme Court also reminded arbitral tribunals that they cannot rewrite a contract, while the Allahabad High Court penalised the Uttar Pradesh Government for denying minimum pay to a forest daily wager and set new formatting standards for every pleading filed before it from 12 November 2026. We also look at a Kerala High Court ruling on women’s right to work and a consumer commission order against a bank over a locker dispute.
Supreme Court: No Income Tax Reassessment Without a Section 143(2) Notice
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against a judgment of the Orissa High Court. The High Court had held that reassessment proceedings against the assessees were invalid because no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had ever been issued, even though the assessees had taken part in the proceedings. The judgment was made public on 29 October 2026.
What the court held: The Supreme Court held that a Section 143(2) notice is a mandatory precondition for reassessment under Section 147. The department argued that Section 292BB cured the defect because the assessees participated, but the Court said that provision only deems a notice to be validly served where a notice was actually issued; it cannot save a case where no notice was sent at all. The Court also clarified that cooperating without objection does not stop an assessee from raising the point later, that a request to treat the original return as the return filed in response to a Section 148 notice does not excuse the department, and that a letter under Section 142(1) asking the assessee to explain the proposed reassessment is not a substitute for a Section 143(2) notice.
What it means for you: If you, your family business or your company are facing a reopened assessment, check the file carefully for a Section 143(2) notice. If none was issued, the entire reassessment may be open to challenge, even at a late stage and even if you have already filed replies. NRIs who receive reassessment notices on Indian income or property sales should keep a complete record of every notice and communication received, since procedural gaps of this kind can decide the outcome. Related practice area: Taxation Law.
Supreme Court: Arbitral Tribunals Cannot Rewrite the Parties’ Contract
In a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar, sitting with Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, the Supreme Court set aside a majority arbitral award that had granted specific performance in a dispute arising from a property development agreement. The award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the matter reached the Supreme Court after the High Court’s decision in appeal under Section 37. The ruling was made public on 29 October 2026.
What the court held: Relying on Section 28(3) of the Act, the Court held that a tribunal must decide disputes in accordance with the terms of the contract, because its authority comes entirely from the parties’ agreement. A tribunal “cannot substitute its own terms for the bargain made by the parties”. Since the challenge was filed in 2012, the Court applied the pre-2015 law, under which an award contrary to the contract could be set aside as against public policy.
What it means for you: For developers, landowners and businesses, this is a reminder that the written contract remains the foundation of any arbitration. Relief that the agreement does not support, even if it seems fair, is vulnerable to being set aside. When drafting joint development, supply or service agreements, spell out remedies clearly, including whether specific performance, compensation or termination is available. Related practice areas: Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution and Drafting & Legal Documentation.
Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs on UP Government Over Minimum Pay for Forest Daily Wager
A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan dismissed two special appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in State of UP and Others v. Ramesh, a decision made public on 30 October 2026. The respondent had worked as a chowkidar and watcher in the Divisional Forest Office at Obra, Sonebhadra, since July 2009, and was being paid ₹6,162 a month instead of the ₹18,000 minimum applicable to a Class IV forest employee. A Single Judge had ordered payment of the Class IV minimum on a month-to-month basis.
What the court held: The Bench held that interim relief which effectively grants final relief may be given in rare cases where the law is already settled by the Supreme Court and the petitioner is clearly likely to succeed. It found that the State’s guidelines of 24 September 2024 conflicted with binding Supreme Court precedent and could not be used to deny the claim, rejected the plea that the State was not heard as contrary to the record, and noted that the State’s own chart showed substantial work in most years from 2019 to 2025. Criticising the State for treating similarly placed workers differently, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 in each appeal, ₹1 lakh in total, payable to the worker within one month.
What it means for you: Daily wage and contractual workers in UP Government departments who have worked for long periods may be entitled to at least the minimum of the pay scale for regular employees doing similar work. Departmental guidelines cannot override settled law, and repeated litigation by the State on settled questions can attract costs. Workers should preserve proof of engagement, such as attendance records, payment slips and work charts. Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law.
Allahabad High Court Sets Uniform Formatting Rules for All Pleadings From 12 November
A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, while hearing a writ petition on a house tax assessment dispute, issued directions prescribing a uniform format for all petitions, affidavits, counter-affidavits, applications and other pleadings filed before the High Court. The directions, made public on 30 October 2026, cover both physical filings and e-filings, at the Principal Seat in Allahabad and the Lucknow Bench, and take effect from 12 November 2026.
What changed: English pleadings must use Times New Roman font, size 14, with double line spacing, and Hindi pleadings must use a Unicode font, size 14, with the same spacing. Bold text is allowed only for marking or describing annexures in the pleading and the index. Italics are allowed only for extracts reproduced in a pleading and for references to courts or statutory provisions, and the prayer clause may not be italicised. Existing margin requirements under the Rules and e-filing instructions continue to apply. The Registrar General has been asked to circulate the order, and the Stamp Reporting Sections will check pleadings against these standards. The Court observed that the lack of uniformity “affects readability and the orderly presentation of the record”.
What it means for you: Anyone filing a case, reply or application in the Allahabad High Court or its Lucknow Bench from 12 November should expect scrutiny of formatting at the filing stage, and non-compliant documents may face objections and delay. Litigants, including NRIs instructing counsel from abroad, should ensure documents drafted earlier are reformatted before filing. Related practice area: High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Bar on Employing Women in Toddy Shops
In Sophy v. State of Kerala and Others, a ruling made public on 29 October 2026, the Kerala High Court examined a provision of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 that prohibited the employment of women in toddy shops.
What the court held: The High Court struck down the provision as violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It reasoned that the State’s duty to protect women from harassment at the workplace cannot be discharged by keeping them out of an occupation of their choice.
What it means for you: The ruling reinforces a principle that applies well beyond Kerala: laws and policies that exclude women from particular jobs in the name of protection are open to constitutional challenge. The better approach is to make workplaces safe, for example through effective complaints mechanisms under the sexual harassment law, rather than to restrict who can work. Employers in regulated sectors should review any recruitment rules or licence conditions that exclude women. Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law.
Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Bank Liable Over Missing Locker Jewellery
In Monica Marwah v. Union Bank of India, a ruling made public on 29 October 2026, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Union Bank of India to compensate a customer who alleged that jewellery worth about ₹47 lakh kept in her bank locker had been misappropriated.
What the court held: The bank claimed that the locker facility had been closed years earlier, but it could not produce any evidence that the locker had been surrendered or that its contents had been returned to the customer. In the absence of such proof, the Commission held the bank responsible and directed it to compensate the complainant.
What it means for you: Locker holders are entitled to expect banks to keep proper records of locker operations, surrender and return of contents. If a bank cannot prove that a locker was lawfully closed and its contents handed back, it may be held liable for deficiency in service. Keep your locker agreement, rent receipts, an inventory of items stored (with photographs where possible), and written records of every visit. If a dispute arises, a complaint before the appropriate consumer commission is a practical remedy. Related practice areas: Consumer Protection and Banking, Finance & Recovery.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you or your business, you can book an online consultation to discuss your situation.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.