Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s summoning order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of the assailants to face trial – Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field between no.2 and 3, shot dead the victim – FIR filed by the appellant-victim’s son – Respondent no.2 and 3 named in the FIR but not named in the chargesheet as accused – Chargesheet was filed u/ss.302, 504 and 506 IPC against the other two, while a final report was filed in
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter; whether contributory negligence could have been concluded on the ground of the scooter driver having only a Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim – Contributory negligence – When not – Appellant, riding pillion on a scooter met with an accident with a trailer leading to amputation of his legs – Tribunal and the High Court found contributory negligence on the part of the scooter
Issue for Consideration Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Complainant-victim alleged that she was coerced into sexual intercourse by under false promise of marriage – High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant u/s.482 holding that he had obtained forced consent from the victim by promising to marry her – Interference with: Held: Parties were closely related and were admittedly in a relationship
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of delay – When justified – Dispute over title of a land between the appellant and the Respondent-State wherein land in its possession – Delay of 1537 days on part of the State in filing the Second Appeal was condoned by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Impugned order upheld – Though delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, however, if in a particular case, the merits have to
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the complainant-respondent would come under the definition of ‘consumer’ in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; whether any liability rested on the appellant to disburse the entire amount of Rs.31,00,000/- i.e., the remaining of the flat payable to the complainant-respondent by the borrower; whether borrower should have been joined in proceedings before the NCDRC. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – Respondent- complainant took a housing loan of Rs.17,64,644/- from ICICI Bank and
Issue for Consideration In view of detection of anomalies in the functioning of the beneficiary research institution-Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID), whether the appellant-Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) was justified in withholding whether the control exercised by ICSSR on CRRID is ‘deep and pervasive’. Headnotes† Grant-in-Aid – ICSSR's Rules of Grant-in-Aid to Societies and Institutions Doing Research in the field of Social Sciences – Complaints received by ICSSR against CRRID alleging
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the adequacy of compensation granted to the appellants under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Headnotes† – Fatal accident – Compensation – Computation of – Victim crushed to death by the offending truck being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner – Appellant’s case that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of her death and was
Issue for Consideration an accident. The appellants filed claim petition for compensation. In the Miscellaneous First Appeal, the High Court fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.8000/- per month. Whether the High Court was justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8000/- per month in the given
184 : 2025 INSC 355 Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R1 to R8) R1: Anandi Gangaram Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R2 to R8) R2: Sunanda Gangaram Dhuri R3: Vaishali Vilas Majalkar R4: Kavita Kashiram Ugave R5: Vithal Gangaram Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, any other prayer indirectly seeking
Issue for Consideration Whether the petition for modification of the decree regarding the custody of the child filed by the respondent-mother and the execution petition filed by the appellant-father should be heard together or whether the execution petition should proceed irrespective of the Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act – ss.13-B, 26 – Appellant-father and respondent-mother of a minor child got divorce by mutual consent – Respondent-mother was granted the permanent custody of the minor son and the appellant-father was granted interim custody during the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in relying upon P. Mohan Raj case which held that the immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14, IBC can only be obtained by a Corporate Debtor and not by a natural person such as the present appellant, while filed by the appellant for quashing of proceedings initiated u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.14,
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an application for recalling an order passed on a concession made by the Appellant’s counsel? Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly interpreted the recruitment rules while directing the Respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’? Headnotes† Concession made by a party in Court – Recall application against order passed based on such concession rightly rejected – Recall permissible in case of fraud or deception – Impugned judgment upheld –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the borrower of a project loan, falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2 (1)(d)(ii) – Borrower of project loan, if falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ – Maintainability of the consumer complaint – Respondent-advertising and branding company defaulted on a project loan availed from the appellant-Bank for engaging in the post
Issue for Consideration Whether the said plot is a MHADA layout; Whether the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) is legally competent to redevelop a ‘censused slum’ situated on MHADA land under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations transit camp occupants can delay a sanctioned redevelopment project by invoking Regulation 33(5) applicable to MHADA layouts; Whether the said plot is a slum area; Whether a separate notification is necessary to declare a ‘censused slum’ as a slum under the Maharashtra Slum Area
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the direction issued in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015] 4 SCR 108 that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit is prospective in nature not having any will not be applicable to the complaint lodged against the appellants in the year 2010-2011. Headnotes† Judgments – Operation of – Plea of the appellants that the second FIR was registered on the complaint which was filed before the Magistrate u/s.156(3), CrPC, however, it
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the courts below allowing the application filed by the daughter of the deceased to implead herself as defendant in the suit for recovery of possession filed by her mother. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Court may strike out or add parties – Impleadment of necessary parties – Suit for recovery of possession by the mother – During pendency, the mother died and the son sought substitution as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff relying upon a registered
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Hotel constructed by the late father of the appellant on the property which he had bought in 1965, was his contribution to the firm and thus, the same was brought on to the stock of the firm and would become the as per Section 14, Partnership Act. Headnotes† Partnership Act, 1932 – s.14 – Interpretation – Late father of the appellant, if had brought the property in question to the stock of the partnership firm as his contribution to the same: Held: s.14 enables a partner
Issue for Consideration Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant under Sections 420, 468 and 471, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was justified. Headnotes† Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – ss.420, 468 and 471 Act, 1988 – ss.5 (1) (d), 5 (2) – Appellant posted as Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Jammu at the relevant time prepared an infant ticket in a fictitious name and then tampered the flight coupon of the same ticket by way of forgery to make it an adult ticket causing
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the computation of pensionary benefits of Job contract employees, only such period of their service as ‘Job Contractors’ to be counted for pensionary benefits as was sufficient to entitle them for pension or the entire period of Job order of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ appeals filed by the State due to inordinate delay. Headnotes† Service law – Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 – r.18 (6) – Pensionary benefits – Computation, of employees employed as a
Issue for Consideration Whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible in the event of termination of service on misconduct, which can be categorised as an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude; without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal Headnotes† Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4(6)(b)(ii) – Interpretation: Held: Under the Act, for forfeiture of gratuity, conviction in a criminal proceeding is not necessitated, if the misconduct alleged and proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude