Issue for Consideration Appellant-DDA executed an agreement to lease in respect of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions, which executed a registered sale deed cum Assignment in favour of second respondent. The second respondent went into liquidation, and the plot was sold to first in liquidation proceedings. The auction sale was confirmed by a Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, hence, the present appeal by DDA. Headnotes† Auction – Agreement to lease executed by Appellant in respect of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of orders passed by the High Court staying the discharge of the accused and directing him to surrender before the trial court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.390, 397, 401 – Revisional court – – Appellant not named in the FIR but was formally arraigned as an accused in the 3rd Supplementary Chargesheet u/ss.302, 201, 34, 120B IPC and ss.25, 27 Arms Act – Trial court discharged the appellant in connection with all the offences and was released from custody –
Issue for Consideration In a case where the appellant alongwith a co-accused was alleged to have kidnapped and murdered the minor daughter of PW1, the issues for consideration were: (i) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence based on which the High Court convicted the Appellant was of last seen together can be made the basis of conviction; (iii) Whether the circumstance of recovery of the dead body following the Appellant’s statement was proof beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant; (iv) Whether motive is an important link in a case based on circumstantial
1969 : 2025 INSC 249 Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025) 20 February 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ] Issue for Consideration I. Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (I) and petition without further participation in the proceedings of the case. Headnotes† The appellant was convicted and sentenced to thirty years of rigorous imprisonment without the right to seek remission until the sentence was complete, a punishment restored by the Supreme Court in an earlier
Issue for Consideration The first issue is whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission. The second issue is about the nature of conditions imposed while granting whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted. Lastly, another question is whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of
Issue for Consideration Whether the State could amend the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 to provide that the input tax credit (ITC) already earned on goods kept in stock could be availed at a reduced rate as the rate of tax on the goods stood reduced in the interregnum when there was no statute i.e., the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Headnotes† Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (“Punjab VAT Act”) – First proviso to s.13(1) – Amended with effect from 01.04.2014 – Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (“Punjab VAT Rules”) –
Issue for Consideration Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under u/s.25 of the Act; whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a to seek maintenance pendente lite under u/s.24 of the Act. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Whether spouse of marriage declared as void can claim permanent alimony u/s.25 and whether maintenance pendente lite can be granted u/s.24 in a s.11 HMA
Issue for Consideration Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, IPC. Whether the identity of the appellants as accused was established. Appellants, if entitled Identity as accused not established – Trial court convicted the appellants u/ss.302, 323 r/w s.34, IPC – High Court altered the conviction to s.304 Part II, IPC – Interference with: Held: Identity of the present appellants as accused was not established before the Court by any
Issue for Consideration The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A of IPC; By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, Appellant married to victim-deceased on 25.06.1996 – On 02.04.1998, the deceased committed suicide – The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498- A of IPC – By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing an appeal u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the requirement of clause 49.5 was never waived by the respondent, that clause 49.5 was a valid clause, Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Arbitration award – Scope of interference in an appeal u/s.37 – Dispute between the appellant and the respondent over construction of Road Over Bridges – Case of the appellant that delay in construction
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against his conviction, under the 1985 Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Art.21 – Suspension of sentence and bail, pending appeal against conviction – Power of courts – Conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under the 1985 Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment – Since the respondent had undergone
Issue for Consideration Whether the State is entitled to levy royalty on brick earth excavation, irrespective of the issue of ownership of the excavated land. Headnotes† Power of State Government to levy on royalty on excavation of brick earth – Punjab Minor Mineral Concession 54A, 54B and 54C of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, the State Government is empowered to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals – In the present case, brick earth was declared as a minor mineral, and thus, the State Government was entitled to levy
Issue for Consideration What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to attract the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC? What are the essentials to constitute a trespass as criminal trespass? Whether the procedure provided under the general law will be attracted if the special law Headnotes† Respondents boarded a chartered plane to travel from Deoghar Airport – Air Traffic Controller denied the permission for take-off – Pilot along with other respondents barged into the room of ATC and exerted pressure – ATC clearance was given and Chartered
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent's arrest was illegal and thus, granting him bail for an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Headnotes† Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.45, 65 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.57 – Arrest vitiated if fundamental rights of the accused u/Arts.21 and 22 were violated – On facts, arrest of the respondent, if was illegal: Held: Yes – Respondent was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from his
Issue for Consideration Whether while computing excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 products, price of the products can be considered as the sole consideration and whether the revenue was entitled to invoke extended period of limitation u/s.11A(1) of the Act and to levy a penalty u/s.11AC of the Act? Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – Valuation of
Issue for Consideration Whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – of Foreigners Rules, 1992 – r.3 – Foreigners Order, 1948 – Clause 5 – Civil Authority or the Registration Officer, if can oppose bail application filed by a foreign national and whether they ought to be made a party in such bail applications: Held: No – The
Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information Report registered at the instance of the 4th respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† the 4th respondent filed twelve separate civil suits, claiming a declaration of his ownership in respect of the subject property – On 23.10.2020, the 4th respondent, through his constituted attorney, filed a complaint with the Police, alleging that the appellant had sold a portion of