Issue for Consideration Whether by way of the circular dated 30.01.2004 the benefits granted under the statutory notification dated 01.04.2003 could have been curtailed by expanding the exclusionary clause; whether crude degummed soyabean appellant is an agricultural product; what is an agricultural product. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.25 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – s.5 – Export-Import (EXIM) Policy of 2002-2007 – Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was correct in reversing the Order passed by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission thereby exonerating respondent from bearing the entire construction cost for the Bay. Headnotes† – Whether the appellant can recover dues and other charges despite being a stranger to the internal tripartite agreement (ITA) dated 27.12.2019 among the respondents: Held: The respondents executed an ITA wherein they agreed to pool in the power to be generated from their respective
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the effect of the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court on the prosecution case. Headnotes† Witness – Eyewitness – Failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court – Effect on the case that accused persons with a common object, armed with deadly weapons, murdered two persons and attempted to kill others, who are now the injured witnesses – Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 307, rw s.149 and s.302 rw s.149 and
Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light gained and concerns expressed. (b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts. (c) Whether
Issue for Consideration An opportunity of being heard was not given by the Special Judge to the appellant-accused before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Whether opportunity of being heard is required in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s.223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Proviso to sub-section (1) of s.223 – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44(1)(b) – Examination of complaint u/s. 223 BNSS – Opportunity of being heard to the accused – In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard
Issue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the legality and propriety of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of Respondent had initiated a suit against the appellant wherein the Single Judge of the High Court passed an order dated 20.08.2024 – Later, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (E-edition) titled ‘why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of
Issue for Consideration Whether an accused from whom or from whose premises the records, instruments or documents of title of the property are seized along with the property u/ss.17 and 18 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is entitled to get copies to get copies of the documents relied upon in the complaint u/s.44(1)(b) of the PMLA and the documents produced along with the complaint; right of an accused to seek production of the documents not relied upon by the prosecution -at what stage the accused can demand copies of the documents
Issue for Consideration Whether in case of discharge of a serviceman from the Indian Army, on the ground of medical invalidation and consequent denial of disability pension, the burden of proof lies on the serviceman or the concerned department? Whether the existence of a causal link between the disability in order to claim disability pension or the nature of the service area? Whether a non-reasoned order of the Medical board be relied upon to grant or deny of disability pension? Headnotes† Petitioner, after serving in Indian Army as a sepoy for 9 years, was discharged on ground
Issue for Consideration Whether a dispute raised by an insured after giving a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer can be referred to arbitration. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Appellant claimed loss and damages under the insurance – After a considerable delay, a grossly inadequate amount was offered by the respondent – Due to financial strain, appellant signed the undated and standardized voucher/advance receipt – Pursuant thereto, appellant received the cheque issued by the respondent –
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950 Order insofar as it relates to the State of Kerala; whether the Appellant had still retained the Hindu Parayan caste, as a member of the Hindu religion, when he Constituency for Legislative Assembly of Kerala. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.116-A and s.100(1)(a) and (d)(i) – Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 – Part VIII of the Schedule – Validity of election – Appellant filed his
Issue for Consideration Whether the Special Court while dealing with an application under sub-section 2 of s.44 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 made in respect of a large number of witnesses, recorded the satifaction which is required to be recorded in terms of sub-section 2 of s.44 by sub-section 2 of s.44 of UAPA was recorded qua an individual witness. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sub-section 2 of s.44 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(6) –
Issue for Consideration The questions arose for consideration whether the appellate tribunal and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission justified in rejecting the appellant’s claim of additional capitalization due to replacement of the damaged the self-insurance policy of the appellant covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs; and whether the Member Secretary of NRPC should have been directed by the appellate tribunal to issue revised availability certificate for the transmission assets. Headnotes† Central Electricity
Issue for Consideration Whether the engineering and technical service fees/agency commission/charges paid by the appellant and its subsidiaries to the local agent of the overseas supplier were includable in the assessable value of the imported goods (spare parts) under the held by all the lower authorities. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.14(1), (1A) – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 – r.9(1)(a) and (e); Note to r.4 – Assessable value of the imported goods (spare parts), for the purpose of
Issue for Consideration Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them u/s.306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Victim-deceased and accused no.7 got married on 15.09.2013 – Relationship deteriorated – It is alleged that persons came to the residence of the victim and abused him and his family members with filthy language – Accused no.7 left with other accused persons to her parental house – Victim committed suicide on 09.12.2013 – Chargesheet filed against the appellants u/s.306 of IPC –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the violation of human rights on refusal to register FIR by the Inspector of Police as also using of objectionable language while talking to complainant’s mother; and correctness of order of the State Human Rights Department to pay compensation to the complainant with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant-Inspector of Police. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – Human Rights Act, 1993 – s.2(d) – Human Rights – Violation of – Refusal to
Issue for Consideration Issue relates to the determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharges by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.42(2) – Rajasthan Electricity and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 – Regulations 90, 2(a)(60) – Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) – Determination of: Held: The CSS has to be determined based on the prevailing tariff rates – Neither the 2003 Act nor the 2014 Regulations makes the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court upholding the arbitral award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34 and 37 – Application for setting aside arbitral awards – regarding delay in completion of the construction contract – Respondent-contracting authority deducted liquidated damages from the contractual dues of the appellant-contractor, along with other deduction and paid balance amount to appellant – Initiation of arbitral proceedings by
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a duty demand based on reclassification of the products Benzene and Toluene from chapter 29 to chapter 27 is sustainable when such re-classification is based on test reports of which only a gist was provided to the appellant by the CESTAT was justified in treating the assessments provisional for the two products Benzene and Toluene for the months of January and February, 1993 in the absence of any order passed under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without executing any B-13 bond. Headnotes† Central
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-alleged contemnor is guilty of civil contempt for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022. Headnotes† Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – When – Agreement entered between the Petitioner-Association and Respondent permitted the latter to occupy and use the Property of the Petitioner for 10 years on payment of licence fees – Persistent defaults in the payment of licence fees by the Respondent – Litigation between
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the tribunal dismissing the review application and holding that disability of the appellant was less than 20%. Headnotes† Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss.14, 30 – Pension Regulations for the Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – rr.5 – Disability pension – Appellant, enrolled in the army, as invalided out from service on account of low medical category for the disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 assessed at less than 20% on the recommendations of