Issue for Consideration Whether the main contractor is entitled to reduce the amount paid to sub-contractor from total consideration while calculating the tax payable under the VAT Act in respect of works contract without provision under the VAT Act granting such deduction. Headnotes† Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – ss.15(1), 66(1) – In the present litigation the respondent-assessee was a registered dealer under the Act, 2003 – The assessee was engaged in the business of executing
Issue for Consideration Whether in a proceeding initiated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for compensation payable under the said Act, insurer could be made a party respondent; if yes, whether compensation can be awarded against it if otherwise admissible under Headnotes† Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Whether in a proceeding initiated under the 1923 Act for compensation payable under the Act, insurer could be made a party respondent; if yes, whether compensation can be awarded against it if otherwise admissible under the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the age-restrictions u/s.4(iii)(c)(I) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 should be applied to intending couples, all of whom had commenced the surrogacy process, to the extent of having their embryos frozen, before the enforcement of Act, 2021 – s.4(iii)(c)(I) – Regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy procedures – Application of the age-restrictions on ‘intending couples’ u/s.4(iii)(c)(I) who had frozen their embryos, before the enforcement of the Act – Act of 2021 Act came into force
Issue for Consideration The present batch of matters arose for consideration in view of the interpretation given to Art.233 of the Constitution of India by this Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [2020] 2 SCR 161. A three-Judge Bench this batch of matters, vide order dated 12th August 2025, had referred the following substantial questions of law for consideration of a Constitution Bench: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be
Issue for Consideration Dispute between the respondent and the appellant society with respect to the allotment of a plot. Headnotes† Cooperative Societies – Respondent was a member of the appellant society – A dispute arose between the with respect to the allotment of plots – The said dispute was raised by the respondent before the Cooperative Court – Later on, by way of amendment in 1996, the respondent was permitted to lay his claim for allotment of Plot No.5A instead of Plot Nos.3 and 4 – However,
Issue for Consideration Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the High Court and confirmed the death sentence awarded to the prosecution has proved the vital circumstances, viz., (i) last seen together theory; (ii) suspicious movement of the appellant captured in the video footage of the CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple; (iii) confessional/disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the acquittal of the appellant-director of the company was correctly reversed by the High Court and whether his conviction u/ss.39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for committing theft of energy and for interference with meters or licensee’s use of energy, sustainable. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 1910 – ss.39 and 44 – Theft of energy – Penalty for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy – Conviction of the appellant-director of the company for the offence
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the “pay and recovery” directions issued by the High Court in favour of the insurer and against the insured owner of the truck. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Collision of a truck and Matador van killed nine two – Tribunal found the driver of both vehicles compositely negligent at the rate of 75:25 – Insurance companies paid the compensation to the claimants however, filed appeal – High Court issued “Pay and recovery” directions in favour of the insurer of the truck and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC] Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 362 – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.528, 403 – High Court – Court not to alter judgment – Writ petition by the complainant for transfer of investigation of the FIR lodged by him, dismissed as withdrawn – Complainant filed second petition with identical prayers which was disposed of by a reasoned order – Said order
Issue for Consideration The deceased was pushed out of the running train resulting in his death. The claim petition of appellants herein was dismissed by the Tribunal on ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide passenger. The High Court concurred with the findings of Tribunal Act, 1987 – s.16 – Railways Act, 1989 – s.124 – The victim-deceased is stated to have purchased a second-class ticket at Indore Railway Junction – It is alleged that due to overcrowding, he was pushed out of the running train, resulting in fatal head injuries
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in observing that on account of non-filing of written statement by the defendant, his right to cross-examination is taken away. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to sub-rule Second Proviso to Sub- rule (1) of r.1 of Or.V – Written statement – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.9 – Appellant-defendant No.1 filed Written Statement in commercial suit on 07.01.2022, beyond the statutory period of 120 days which had expired on 14.11.2021, in the
Issue for Consideration Whether in a suit for eviction based on a licensor-licensee relationship, the Trial Court and Appellate Court were justified in awarding mesne profits/liquidated damages under the Leave and License Agreement as an interim measure, pursuant to an 2, CPC, or whether the High Court rightly set aside the same; applicability of Order XV-A of CPC (Bombay Amendment) to the present case. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XV-A (Bombay Amendment); Or.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 – Applicability of – Or.XV-A (Bombay
Issue for Consideration Whether the stamp duty on the instrument “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”, is chargeable under Article 40 or Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act 1899. Headnotes† Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Article 40 or Article 57 Stamp duty on the instrument “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”, if chargeable u/Article 40 or Article 57 of Schedule 1-B: Held: In matters of stamp duty, the decisive factor is not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument, but the substance of rights and obligations it embodies
Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1989 holding the appellants herein guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s.302 r/w. Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 149 – Prosecution case that PW-20 visited his agricultural field alongwith his brother – The accused nos. 2, 16, 17, and 21 respectively alongwith 400- 500
Issue for Consideration The High Court confirmed the acquittal of accused nos.7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of all the charges and at the same time convicted the accused nos.1 to 6 and 11 for offences punishable u/ss.143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w. s.149 of the IPC and awarded them r/w. s.149 IPC and further lesser punishment under the other offences. Aggrieved by their conviction, the instant appeals are preferred by convicted accused nos.1 to 6 and the accused no.11. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w. s.149 – Prosecution case
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant has been unnecessarily delaying and causing obstruction in the execution of the decree. Headnotes† Decree – Execution of Decree – After this Court on 01.04.2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing payment refused the tender and obstructed execution: Held: The defendants-respondents tried to make the payment to the plaintiff-appellant but they declined to accept the same and as such execution proceedings were initiated in which the defendants deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores by way of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellants u/s.302 IPC; and whether the appellants are the real persons who chased the deceased and killed him. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder Altercation between the parties over a land dispute – Few hours later, the appellants armed with swords and sharp edged weapon inflicted blows upon the son of the complainant resulting in his death – Acquittal by the trial court, however, conviction of the appellants-father, son
Issue for Consideration Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017; The kind and nature of the constructions in and around the Futala Tank. Headnotes† Wetlands (Conservation 2017 – r.2(1)(g) – ‘Wetland’ – Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g): Held: Futala Lake is not classifiable within the statutory definition of ‘wetland’ in r.2(1)(g) – The lake is a man-made waterbody
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to issuance of directions relating to road safety, safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED white lights to help in reduction of road accidents – Art. 32 – Road safety and pedestrian safety – Alarming increase in road accidents and fatalities, and pedestrian fatalities – Issuance of directions relating to safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, making pedestrian crossings safe, wearing of helmets, wrong
Issue for Consideration Whether it is necessary for the minors to have filed a suit upon attaining majority within the prescribed time period, to set aside the earlier sale deed executed by their natural guardian, with respect to plot no.57 or such a sale deed could be repudiated through their majority. Headnotes† Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of s.8 – Plots Nos.56 and 57 were purchased by one R in name of his three sons – R transferred plot no.56 to one SI (without the permission of Court) and who further