Issue for Consideration Whether the Secured creditors would have priority of interest over the assets attached under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) and Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act), by virtue of the provisions and RDB Act, 1993; whether the properties of the Judgment Debtors and Garnishees attached under the Provisions of MPID Act, 1999 would be available for the execution of the decrees against Judgment Debtors in view of the Provision of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016.
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suo moto cognizance taken by this Court in child rape cases; and directions to Union and States Government to set up Special POCSO Courts on top priority, and timeline compliances. Headnotes† Protection of Children Act, 2012 – Child rape cases – Alarming increase in number of reported child rape incidents in view of various news reports – Suo- moto cognizance by this Court – Issuance of directions for setting up of special courts exclusively designated for trying offences under the
Issue for Consideration The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples facing severe administrative issues of crowd management. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XL, R.1 – – Mathura Region – Temples in grip of legal battles – Appointment of advocates as receivers – A stop-gap measure – The instant suit pending for 25 years – Temple trust running through receivers – No effort to conclude the civil proceedings –
Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are arising out of the two impugned orders dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 by which the Division Bench of the High Court declared re-election of all the office bearers since it was held that the electoral college itself was flawed and appointed re-elections. Furthermore, it was held that the amendments to the bye-laws had not been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution of Church of South India (CSI) and it was held that the Special Meeting of the Synod held on 7th and 8th March 2022 was not duly
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the NCLAT which approved the judgment and order passed by the NCLT subject to the modifications/clarifications made by it, by upholding the dismissal of the Company Applications filed by the the Resolution Plan of JSW- Prospective Resolution Applicant subject to certain conditions, by the NCLT. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 –
Issue for Consideration Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon. Headnotes† Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate- on-Record – Misconduct – opinions expressed by the Bench: Held: [Per Court] In view of the divergent opinions expressed by the Bench on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court. Headnotes† Code of ss.82, 204, 482 – Anticipatory bail – Avoiding execution of summons or warrants – Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC – Special court took cognizance of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours – Statutory bail – Grant of – Bail applications filed by the respondent-accused against whom case registered u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s.120-B
Issue for Consideration Whether Resolution Plan-RP approved by Committee of Creditors-CoC and NCLT was in contravention of provisions of any law requiring NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; whether the NCLAT should have entertained the appeals filed by the respondents-63 Moons u/s.61 of the Code and tinkered with the RP approved by the CoC and the NCLT; whether NCLAT was correct in dismissing appeals by FD Holders challenging the distribution
Issue for Consideration The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed seeking intervention in the matter and seeking clarification/ modification of the directions contained in Para 42 of the Judgment and in Criminal Appeal No. 3883-3884 of 2024. The two questions arise before the Court: (i) whether the Advocates have an indefeasible right to appear for a party or to get their appearances marked for a party, though not duly authorised to appear in the court proceedings and (ii) whether the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” to the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking substantially the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier order passed by the High Court entertaining the said writ petition; and as regards the right of the Residents’ Assembly to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board of the appellant Foundation. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 –
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorized officers to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Finance Act, 2012 – Finance Act, 2019 – ss.104(4), 104(6) – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – ss.69, 70, 132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.4, 5, 50; Chapter XII – Constitution of India – Articles 246-A, 21 22(1), 32, 226 – Om Prakash case held that the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the criminal appeal preferred by accused-respondent and dismissing acquittal appeal preferred by the State, thereby acquitting both the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons as the case is based on Circumstantial Evidence – Correctness: Held: The entire case of the prosecution hinged on the circumstantial evidence, there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident – So far as accused-AB is
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered for offence punishable u/s.18 of the NDPS Act, and when subsequently he was involved in another case of the same nature. Headnotes† Narcotic Substances Act, 1985 – s.18 – Bail – High Court granted bail to the accused in a case registered for offence punishable u/s.18 – Subsequently, accused involved in another case under NDPS Act and also arrested for the same, and trial had already commenced: Held: Having
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No 13 dated 14.02.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Anticipatory Bail – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 438 – Indian order of Supreme Court, the appellant/ accused joined investigation and his custodial interrogation not required as per the State – The appellant directed to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deemed fit by the
Issue for Consideration Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing a fresh cause of action can be allowed if it arises out of continuous transactions and does not alter the nature and character of the suit; whether the bar under Section 80 of the CPC applies to an suit. Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – When permissible – Fresh cause of action – Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing subsequent events can be allowed – Whether the amendment changes the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom, thereby allowing the petition filed by the accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether High Court was correct in quashing commenced and the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses – Correctness: Held: The petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed by the respondent after the trial court framed the charge and commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined five witnesses –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the extension of the term of the Claims Commission, and determining the Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits of the villages acquired by Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Compensation claim – Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits – Determination, of land oustees of four acquired