Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Chairman of Managing Committee which runs the school can be punished for offence of cruelty to the child u/s.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, punished for cruelty to a child – Four year old sexually assaulted by a classmate in the school – Charge sheet filed against four persons, including appellant-Chairman of Managing Committee – Special judge issued summons to appellant, attributing negligence to the appellant for
Issue for Consideration Issue arose in this suo motu writ petition with respect to the large amounts of unclaimed compensation lying deposited with MACTs and Labour Courts under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1988 – ss.166, 176 – Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Large amounts of unclaimed compensation lying with MACTs and Labour Courts – Email received from a retired District Judge – Suo motu action by Supreme Court – Directions issued: Held: Rules
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Murder of women and her three daughters by setting them on fire – FIR by complainant-brother of deceased lady against accused- husband and co-accused, that they poured kerosene on the wife and three daughters and set them on fire – Co-accused later succumbed to burn
Issue for Consideration In petition u/s.34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Single Judge had set aside the Arbitral Award. Division Bench in appeal thereagainst u/s.37, Arbitration Act by way of the impugned judgment, inter alia upheld the dismissal of L&T’s counter-claim findings of the Arbitral Tribunal that the Supplementary Agreement was a non-starter as it was vitiated by economic duress; that the Development Agreement was not novated by the Supplementary Agreement; that L&T committed fundamental breach of the Development Agreement. The operative part of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the order of the competent authority issuing certificate of deemed conveyance in respect of a plot to first respondent. Headnotes† Maharashtra Ownership Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 – s.11 – Promoter to convey title, and execute documents, according to agreement – Scope of power of competent authority u/s.11 – Interference with the order granting deemed conveyance – Deed of
Issue for Consideration Whether upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished; whether the arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 was capable of being executed. Headnotes† Code 1908 – s.47 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.31 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Respondent filed claim petitions against the appellant before the Facilitation
Issue for Consideration Sub-rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 provided that where any dealer had generated declaration forms or certificates by misrepresentation of fact or by fraud or in contravention of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST authority or any other authority authorised by the Commissioner after affording such dealer an opportunity of being heard, is empowered to cancel such declaration forms or certificates. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the first appellant-State had no rule-making power to
Issue for Consideration The present set of appeals have travelled to this 3-Judge Bench as a result of the split verdict delivered through Judgment dated 18.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 and other connected matters. All the candidates had successfully cleared followed by mains examination, as per the requirements of marks in their respective categories. However, none of these candidates had their certificates issued as per the date specified in the Subsequent Notice (dated 04.08.2022), their names were not included in the list of the candidates
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order by the Division Bench of the High Court with regard to upholding the order of the sub-registrar, refusing registration of a sale deed. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.69 – Registration (Tamil Nadu r.55A – Vires of r. 55A – Refusal of the Sub-registrar to register the sale deed on the ground that the title of the vendor and the appellant not established – Correctness – Sub-Registrar refused to register sale deed executed in favour of the appellant – On
Issue for Consideration Whether the limitation to file an appeal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code starts from the date of pronouncement of the order or from the date when the order is communicated to the parties. Headnotes† Insolvency – Section 60(5) – Period of limitation to run from the date of pronouncement of the order by the Adjudicating Authority – Interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of legislation – Strict construction of time limits in the
Issue for Consideration The appellant-Bank dismissed the respondent from the services. Whether the respondent was entitled to receive the terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 Clause 19.5(c) – UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Respondent was serving as a Clerk in the appellant Bank – Respondent was dismissed from the services on the charges of indulging in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour within the premises of the Bank
Issue for Consideration Dispute arose as to whether the power exercised by Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing a Land Settlement Order- a quasi-judicial order u/s.57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could be considered of a nature that would warrant him. The questions for consideration were (i) whether the chargesheet issued to appellant by Respondent-State fell within the scope of observations carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case; and (ii) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years)
Issue for Consideration Whether the demolition of the appellants’ residential premises/ buildings by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) purportedly done under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was illegal. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban – ss.27, 43 – Order of demolition of building – Services of notices, etc. – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Residential structures of the appellants demolished purportedly u/s.27 – Whether the demolition was illegal: Held: Yes
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS as alleged, were made out against the appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha; whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to quash the FIR lodged 2023 – ss.196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) – Appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha had put out a video of a mass marriage function on his social media platform, and in the background of the video, the words of the poem in question were uttered – FIR was lodged against the
Issue for Consideration Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences, with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between – Art.142 – Cross-FIRs related to same incident and for the same offences, filed by two lawyers against each other – Both lawyers practising before the same Courts – Incident arose due to past animosity – Unconditional apology and undertakings tendered by both
Issue for Consideration Whether the complaint filed by the respondent-Credit Co-operative Society under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Abuse – Suppression of material facts and documents – When – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.200 – Security cheque issued in lieu of the loan allegedly taken by the appellant from the respondent-Credit Co-operative
Issue for Consideration Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 is justified; whether he is entitled to remission of sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Delay in recording statements of witnesses – When not fatal – was convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant inter alia contended that he was implicated in a false case as there was delay in recording of the statements of the witnesses: Held: Delay in recording witness statements is not always fatal to the prosecution’s
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of judgment and order of the Special Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Headnotes† Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 15, 19 – TADA Rules – r.15 – Recording of confessional statement – Non-compliance – Effect – Complaint alleging that Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University and his Personal Secretary were kidnapped by armed terrorists from their official car and subsequently,
Issue for Consideration The High Court converted the conviction of respondents u/s.302 of IPC into the second part of s.304 of the IPC. Whether the judgment of the High Court requires interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and second part of s.304 – The case of the accused, with a common intention and object, came together and assaulted PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-11, PW-12 and the deceased, on 01.11.1989 – The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable u/s.147 and ss.452, 302, 325, and 323 r/w. s.149 of the IPC – By the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the validity of the income tax dues of the corporate debtor owed to the Central Government, when not a part of the approved Resolution Plan. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.31(1) – Legal effect of approval of a of resolution plan, issuance of demand notices by the Income Tax Department for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in respect of the Corporate Debtor-CD, however no claim about the demands submitted before the Resolution Professional – Application by the second respondent-Monitoring