Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order by which the application filed by the respondent herein (judgment debtor-original defendant) under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and Rule Code, 1908, respectively came to be allowed and thereby the Court granted stay of the execution of the money decree suffered by the respondent without insisting for the deposit of the decretal amount. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5 – Stay by Appellate
Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for matricide-killing of one’s own mother. By the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Matricide-killing of one’s own received an unknown call informing that there was a doubtful death – Police reached the spot – Last rites of the dead body was hurriedly carried out – The body was inspected and it was found that there was strangulation mark on the neck and injury on the backside of skull with
Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; whether the High Court is correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court on the Oral by the Plaintiff; whether the Plaintiff established her claim as the daughter of K and A; whether the claim of the Plaintiff under oral gift/Hiba is validly proved, and the title is derived to an extent of 10 acres; whether the suit for declaratory relief is barred by limitation.
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether tax can be levied u/s.3F of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the ink and processing material used by the appellant in undertaking the printing work of lottery tickets. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – ss.2(m), – Tax on the right to use any goods or goods involved in the execution of works contract – Appellant undertaking the printing work of lottery tickets – Levy of trade tax u/s.3F on the ink, chemical and processing material used by the appellant – Tribunal deleted the
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned directions issued by the High Court were beyond the scope of the writ petition and ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Writ petition – Directions issued beyond the scope of – Impermissibility the annual license fee of the premises let out to the second appellant- Trust from Rs.227.25/- p.a. to Rs.1,50,000/- p.a.; held that there would be no review of the aforesaid order and demanded arrears of Rs.20,46,788/- of licence fee – Challenged – High Court upheld all the
Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellants, or whether the circumstances leave room for reasonable doubt – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 120-B – Conviction of the appellants u/ss.302, 201, 120-B, IPC rested largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 – Interference with: Held: 1.1 Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the impugned tender condition meets the test of reasonableness and fairness and or whether the same constitutes an arbitrary criteria which excludes the other eligible bidders from participation thereby violating, the mandate contained in Arts.14 Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19(1)(g) – Tender – Tender condition – Test of reasonableness and fairness – State of Chhattisgarh issued tender notices for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools – Tender
Issue for Consideration Whether the notice issued by the appellant to respondent nos.2 and 3 on 10.06.2015, constitutes sufficient notice and/or whether the respondent nos.2 and 3 were entitled to a second show cause notice proposing to impose the penalty u/s.27 of the Competition Act, 2002 – ss.26(8), 27, 48 – Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 – Regulations 21, 48 – Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2024 – Regulation 49 – Opportunity of penalty hearing – An
1996 : 2025 INSC 1171 SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 12272 of 2025) 26 September 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in and/or equity estoppel as against the terms of the contract. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34, 37, 18 – Setting aside of an arbitral award – Appellant-Contractor, entered into several agreements with the respondent for construction of three
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the maintainability of the claim by the legal representatives substituted in place of the deceased claimant during pendency of the appeal, and the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court to the deceased claimant rendered accident. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.166, 167(5) – Motor accident – Enhancement of compensation – Claimant rendered 100% disabled, in a motor accident awarded compensation by the tribunal which was enhanced by the High Court – Claimant sought
Issue for Consideration The present appeals were filed u/s.62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by erstwhile promoters and various Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor against the impugned judgment passed by the NCLAT in relation to Resolution proceedings of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (‘BPSL’). The primary questions for consideration were:- 1) Whether the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to extend the timeline for implementation of BPSL’s resolution plan could be invalidated on
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the accused-respondents u/ss.302 r/w s.120-B, 143 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 and sentences imposed by the trial Court and thus, acquitting them by extending them the benefit of doubt on the ground and patent infirmities in the prosecution case. Headnotes† Appeal against acquittal – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w s.120-B, 143 and 201 – Accused-respondents were convicted u/ss.302 r/w s.120-B, 143 and 201, IPC and sentenced accordingly – Acquitted by High
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the case made out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against them u/ss.498-A, 377 and 506 r/w s.34 IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of the FIR against the husband and the appellants-father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-wife as also the husband for the offences punishable u/ss.498-A, 377 and 506 r/w s.34 IPC–Application u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal proceedings – Rejected by the
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant-GUVNL is entitled to reimbursement of the fixed charges, in relation to the diverted electricity from out of its allocated share by Essar Power Limited (EPL) to its sister company-Essar Steel Limited (ESL), in addition to the wrongful diversion. Headnotes† Electricity – Proportionate principle of allocation – Reimbursement of fixed charges in relation to the diverted electricity – Predecessor-in-interest of GUVNL-Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB), entered into a PPA with EPL for purchase of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court justified in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Sessions Judge upholding the grant of bail to accused Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Headnotes† Bail – Cancellation/grant of bail – Procedural irregularities – Accusation against the accused-husband and wife having received Rs. 1.90 crores from the complainant on the promise to transfer land which was already mortgaged
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the auction was per se illegal being conducted in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962; whether the the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-DDA without adverting to the validity of the auction; whether the e-auction conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT, the confirmation of sale and sale certificate issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser ought to be quashed and set aside and the
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court erred in holding that all the acts done by the official receiver between the declaration of the appellant’s insolvency and adjudication of insolvency were saved u/s.37(1), Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 and that notwithstanding the annulment of insolvency against the appellant and his mother, the sale deed executed on 11.03.1983 was valid. Headnotes† Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 – s.37 –
Issue for Consideration The present appeal has been filed challenging the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent no.1-accused u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and reversing the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Act, 1881 – Chapter XVII (Sections 138 to 148): Held: The provisions contained in Chapter XVII provide that where any cheque drawn by a person for the discharge of any liability is returned by the bank unpaid for the reason of the insufficiency of the amount of money standing to the
Issue for Consideration The following issues arise for determination in the instant appeals: (i) What is the true nature of the rights in the land granted to the Appellants; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with and findings of the Courts below; (iii) Whether the recission of the grant on the ground of non- cultivation under Article 12 of the OA could be vitiated on the ground of waiver, acquiescence, delay or condonation; (iv) Whether the order of the Collector dated 30.04.1974 is vitiated by mala fides,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR registered for offences punishable u/ss.420, 467, and 468 IPC. Headnotes† Code of s.482 – Quashing of the proceedings – Converting civil disputes into criminal proceedings – FIR registered for offences punishable u/ss.420, 467, and 468 IPC against the appellant – Appellant sought quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings