Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants, landowners of Village Dharuhera, Haryana, whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by a notification dated 12.12.2008 are entitled to compensation at a higher rate—on par with the compensation awarded lands in adjoining villages, acquired under a later notification dated 13.05.2010, where the compensation was enhanced vide judgments in BESCO and M/s Habitat Estates. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) – Land acquired for development and utilization of institutional
Issue for Consideration Appellant sought release of his land from acquisition. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Appellant is the owner in possession of the land in question notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act for acquisition of the land – The LAC passed an award and mentioned that the possession of the land acquired was already taken and the same vests with the Government – Appellant filed various writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, Quashing of complaint – Abetment of suicide – Cheating – Victim, respondent nos.2 and 3 partners in a firm, and respondent no.4 was the manager – Victim committed suicide by hanging – After about 39 days, the appellant-wife of the deceased registered a complaint that
Issue for Consideration Whether the case of the present Petitioner is specifically covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and 737; After the said judgment was brought to the notice of the respondents/authorities, whether the respondents/authorities could have proceeded with the recovery proceedings. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.2(b) –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting the accused-appellant u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Abusive quarrel between the appellant and the victim – Appellant attacked succumbed to injuries – Relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the courts below convicted the appellant u/s.302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment – Correctness: Held: Evidence of the informant-PW-1 contradictory with that of PW-6 – Perusal of the testimony
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction u/s.302 IPC could be converted into s.304 Part I or Part II IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I, 300 exception IV, 302 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Alteration of conviction to a witnesses – Reliability – Quarrel on account of previous enimity between the accused persons and the deceased who were brothers – Upon confrontation, the co-accused and his son-appellant became aggressive, and the co-accused armed with axe and the appellant armed with stick
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court and not Writ Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ Court Civil Court – Hyper-technical view – Payment of salary for service rendered – In an earlier SLP, petitioners including appellant had sought liberty to claim payment of salary for the period they have worked – While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court granted liberty to
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the conviction of the accused u/s.120B and 411 IPC, when the seized gold bars are not the same gold bars linked to the fraudulent transactions. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 411 rw receiving stolen property – Criminal conspiracy – Possession of stolen property – Commission of fraud by remittance through fake Telegraphic Transfers-TT and subsequent withdrawals amounting to Rs. 6.7 crores at the Bank – Bank account opened for a fictitious firm
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the entitlement of the appellant to pensionary benefits, when her unauthorised absence for twenty years was treated as extraordinary leave and her service was regularised. Headnotes† Service law – West Bengal Service 1971 – rr.28A, 175, 176(4) – Pensionary benefits – Entitlement, when unauthorised absence of leave treated as extraordinary leave – Appellant-government employee, remained absent from duty for 107 days and thereafter from 1987 to 2007 – Her allegations that though she
Issue for Consideration Appellant appeared in the NEET-UG 2024 Examination and secured a rank of 2462 in the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. The designated Disability Certification Centre found him ineligible to pursue medical course on the basis of his quantified disability. When Court in a writ petition, it was dismissed on the ground that the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the experts in the field of disability. Appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP and this Court while issuing notice directed Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, was justified in directing the parties Non-compliance of the order of the High Court – Aggravated contempt – HIDCO agreed to convey land to the appellants on freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- – Appellant paid the entire amount – However, HIDCO decided that allotment would not be on freehold basis but on
Issue for Consideration Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of respondent no.2 in the present case was totally activated by mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the appellants. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Appellants had filed two civil suits, i.e. one for permanent injunction to prohibit respondent no.2 and the other for declaration of ownership of the suit property – Respondent no.2 filed an FIR u/ss.448 and 506 IPC alleging that appellants had threatened respondent no.2 to withdraw
Issue for Consideration Whether the incident in question occurred at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view; whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes† Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) – “any place within public view” – As per the complainant when he was in his office
Issue for Consideration Whether selling of Nitrous Oxide I.P. by the appellant no. 1 company to the unlicensed accused No.3 firm which does not possess license under Form 20B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, was in contravention r.65(5)(1)(b) of the Rules, punishable u/s.27(d) of the said Act. Headnotes† Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.3(f), 18(a)(vi), 27(d) – Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – rr.65(5)(1)(b), 70, Form 20B, 25, 26 – Manufacture and sale of drugs – Condition of
Issue for Consideration Non-speaking summoning order issued by Magistrate against the appellants. Petition under Section 482, CrPC filed by the appellants for quashing, dismissed by High Court. Issue as regards the legality of the summoning order and the Non-speaking – Quashing of: Held: Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – However, in the present
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Admissibility and recovery – Admissibility of CCTV evidence – Requirement of certificate u/s.65 B(4) – On facts, conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 rw ss.397 and 201 IPC for rape and murder of the deceased and sentenced to death
Issue for Consideration Whether respondents should have granted the benefit of promotion from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 with all monetary benefits to the appellant. Headnotes† Service Law – Benefit of promotion – Monetary benefits – A – The appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/ S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance – After a detailed enquiry, a minor penalty of reduction in pay for 3 years was imposed on appellant – Promotion that was kept in abeyance stood
Issue for Consideration The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants while setting aside father. The complainant (PW-6) who filed the FIR was initially projected as the eye witness but later turned hostile during the trial and it was only PW-10 (mother of the deceased) who claimed to be the eye witness. The conviction of appellants was challenged in the instant appeal as being
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether the complaint filed by the appellant u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in accordance with the requirement u/s.142 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142 – Code of Criminal Cognizance of offence – Complaint filed by the appellant-power of attorney holder and manager of the appellant-firm u/s.138 against respondent no.1 – Order passed to summon, the sole owner of respondent no.1 – Application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. by respondent no.1 seeking quashing
Issue for Consideration Whether the application under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could have been made by the Appellant-MCD, a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 2(41) of the Act. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.63, 86, 2(41), 174, 175 process – Functions of the State Commission – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – r.15 – Appellant, if could issue tariff based bid and Request for Proposal (RfP) for setting up the Waste to Energy Project – Petition filed by appellant before the Delhi