Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under various sections of Penal Code, 1860, when the prosecution failed to conduct fair investigation and had suppressed affidavits of – ss.34, 302, 307 – Murder – Failure to carry fair investigation – Appellants-accused convicted for murder of deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment whereas acquittal of accused no.1 – Bail applications by appellants – Sessions court relied on the
Issue for Consideration RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme. Whether the fixing of the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2020 for grant of pensionary benefits and that too with law or is discriminatory and arbitrary. Headnotes† Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 – Contributory Provident Fund – After introduction of Pension Regulations, 1990, RBI gave option to the serving and retiring employees to switch
Issue for Consideration Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are included in Organized Group-A Service (OGAS); all benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs. Headnotes† Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP and CISF, collectively known as Service (OGAS) – All benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs – Grievances of the appellants- officers belonging to different CAPFs were non-recognition as OGAS, non-grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and service stagnation because of lateral entry by
Issue for Consideration Typographical error in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment and order dated 20.05.2025. Headnotes† Judgment/Orders – Typographical error – Direction issued to carry out correction. List of Keywords Judgments; Orders; Typographical error. Case Arising From No. 603 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLR No. 82 of 2022 With Criminal Appeal No. 2569 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Devvrat Pradhan. Advs. for the Respondents: Vikas Bansal,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection. Headnotes† Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.6 – Penal accused – Rehabilitation of the victim and her child – Measures for adolescent well being and child protection – On facts, girl aged fourteen years victim under the POCSO Act – Victim married the accused and had a child with him – Acquittal of the accused for the
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the Demand Notices issued to the Appellants demanding 10% of the total bid amount to be deposited with the concerned District Mineral Foundation(s) (DMF). Headnotes† Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – ss.9B, 14, 15, 15A (Concession) Rules, 1963 – rr.21, 23(3), 54, 68 – District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017 – r.10(2) – Appellant was a successful bidder for mining of minor mineral i.e., sand and was allotted a tender – Demand Notice was issued calling upon the Appellant to
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants/accused no. 1 to 11 for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 307 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the other offences; whether, in the instant case, the trial Court precedent before examining a minor witness; whether the trial Court satisfied itself that minor witness understood the importance of the oath. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307 r/w.149 – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1992 – s.3 –
Issue for Consideration The Division Bench of the High Court held that appellant was not entitled to the benefit of maternity leave. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – Maternity Leave – Appellant is stated to have two children from the first wedlock – First Due to conceivement from her second marriage, appellant applied for grant of maternity leave to the authorities for the period from 17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022 – The third respondent vide order dated 28.08.2021 rejected the prayer of the appellant that as per Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a)
Issue for Consideration Whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a ‘state or authority’ within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India; whether it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution – Arts.12, 226 – Writ petitions filed by the appellants-teachers alleging wrong-doings w.r.t actions taken against them by the respondent-Air Force School – Division Bench of the High Court held that the said School is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art.12
Issue for Consideration Appointment, reappointment, tenure and qualifications of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission; importance of consumerism; and whether grievance redressal mechanism provided to a consumer, is adequate or Is one of the most integral aspects of human life. [Para 2] Consumerism – Essence of Consumerism in the Constitution: Held: Rights of a consumer are not merely constitutional or statutory guarantees, but are in fact, natural, and therefore, inalienable – The fact that the society,
Issue for Consideration Whether the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet against the appellant ought to be quashed and set aside; whether the action of the respondent-Bank was mala fide and arbitrary in serving the charge sheet without receiving the first stage advice by the Central Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 19 – Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Respondent-Bank served charge sheet upon the appellant without waiting for the CVC’s advice – Appellant sought quashing of
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the juvenility of respondent No.2 and grant of bail to him. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94(2) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – Penal ss.3/25/27 – Natural guardian/mother of respondent No.2-accused filed applications before the JJB to declare respondent No.2 as a juvenile – JJB in an earlier proceeding relating to respondent No. 2 arising out of a different incident had accepted the date of birth of respondent No.2
Issue for Consideration Deductions claimed cumulatively under the provisions of s.80-HHC and s.80-IA or s.80-IB under Heading ‘C’ of Chapter VI-A, Income Tax Act, 1961, if can be allowed; scope of restriction u/sub-section (9) of s.80-IA, Income Tax Act, 1961 on Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – Chapter VI-A – Heading ‘C’– ss.80-HHC, 80-IA, 80-IB, 80-IA(9) – Deductions u/ss.80-HHC, 80-IA and 80-IB under Heading ‘C’ – Appellant claimed deductions u/s.80-HHC and ss.80-IA, 80-IB, disallowed
Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned orders sustaining dismissal of the appellant from the service requires interference; whether there was any violation of statutory rules; whether there was violation of principles of natural justice; whether, in the instant case, there is ample evidence order dated 01.10.1991, which solely benefited appellant, was fake. Headnotes† Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Allegation against the appellant that she had managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts of the case there was a breach of s.313, CrPC causing prejudice to the appellants and vitiating the trial against them. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 468, 471, 120B – – ss.5(2), 5(1)(d) – Appellants were convicted u/ss.420, 468, 471, 120B, IPC r/w ss.5(2), 5(1)(d), PC Act and sentenced accordingly – Incriminating circumstances which had come on record against them in the prosecution evidence were not put to them in their examination u/s.313
Issue for Consideration These instant two appeals assail concurrent findings of conviction u/s.326A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence thereof against accused no.1 and accused no.2 respectively appellants herein. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.326A r/w. s.34 – It was alleged appellants herein blocked the way of respondent-victim – Accused no.1-appellant and accused no.3 held the respondent-victim while accused no.2-appellant, poured acid over her and then ran away from the spot – Trial Court convicted all the accused persons – Both the appellants
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or s.528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated u/s.12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Headnotes† Criminal Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.528 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – s.12 – Exercise of power of High Court u/s.482, CrPC (s.528, BNSS) to quash proceedings u/s.12, DV Act – Permissibility: Held: High Courts can exercise power u/s.482,
Issue for Consideration 1. Whether encashment of bank guarantees furnished under court orders can be treated as “payment of duty” for the purpose of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act? 2. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment apply through such encashment? 3. Whether the Department was right in encashing the guarantees when the civil appeals were pending before this Court? Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Encashment of bank guarantees furnished under interim orders of High Court – Whether such encashment
Issue for Consideration Whether the 2017 Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in the context of the EIA Notification 2006 for grant of ex post facto environmental clearances (EC) is legal and valid; Whether the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by Procedure (SOP) for projects that have commenced without an EC is legal and valid. Headnotes† Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – EIA Notification 2006 – MoEFCC’s 2017 Notification established process for grant of ex post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearance
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of High Court was justified setting aside the directions related to pendente lite interest, holding that it was not open for the arbitral tribunal to have carved out three periods for payment of interest: future. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Arbitral award – Award of interest for pre-reference and pendente lite period – Respondent engaged services of the appellant for executing a contract relating to Power Project – Appellant