SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 26660/2025
Bench
2 judges
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether the preliminary issue on the question of limitation, decided on the basis of demurrer, could have been permanently foreclosed by the arbitrator; whether the doctrine of Party Autonomy, can be on a procedure which has the consequence of infringing s.3 of the Limitation Act, 1963; and whether the interim award warranted interference by the court u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Interim award –
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the High Court erred in its interference with the order of rejection of the respondent’s application under the One Time Settlement 2020 Scheme and (ii) Whether, a court can uphold an order rejecting an applicant’s claim based on a ground appearing from the records of the case which could have been but has not been mentioned, if the grounds mentioned in such order of rejection are not found to be tenable. Headnotes†
Issue for Consideration Reforms in Beggars’ Homes. Headnotes† Reforms in Beggars’ Homes – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to dignity, health, shelter, privacy and humane treatment – Present case arose out of a grave and unfortunate incident at the where contamination of the drinking and cooking water with coliform bacteria resulted in an outbreak of cholera and gastroenteritis among the inmates leading to multiple deaths and widespread illness, exposing serious lapses in sanitation, hygiene, and healthcare facilities within the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant had the authority to notify the Interim Coal Policy, in terms of the dictum of this Court in Ashoka Smokeless’s case; whether the increase of 20% over and above the notified price introduced in the Interim Coal Policy for the non-core sector was valid in terms of Art.14; and if no, whether the respondents are entitled to refund of the 20% additional cost. Headnotes† Colliery Control Order, 2000 – Interim Coal Policy – Validity – Coal price fixation – Interim Coal Policy notified by the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in bringing the case within the ambit of “attempt to commit murder” punishable u/s.307 IPC on the ground that the deceased-R died after a period of nine months from the date of the incident. Headnotes† Penal – Intention to cause death – Death occurs after several days of complications – Principle that Courts must remember: Held: If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of septicaemia or other
Issue for Consideration Whether the General Conditions (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification, are applicable to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects) of the Schedule thereto, and, if so, when situated within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of environmentally sensitive areas are required to be appraised as Category A projects by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (Central EAC), rather than being considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/UT
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on the ground that the appellant is a sitting MLA, Procedure, 1973 – ss.219 to 223 – Joint trials – Segregation of trial – Permissibility – Appellant-MLA arrayed as one of the accused person along with others , in connection with large-scale communal violence in the Nuh District – Joint proceedings
Issue for Consideration Whether the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred or not. Whether it is Article 65 or Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the present facts in hand. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65 or Art.59 – The for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession – In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed that they be put in joint possession along with the defendant and the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 be declared as fraudulent, concocted and
Issue for Consideration (1) What is the meaning and import of the expression “within such period” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (2) When can the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay by a lower court be interfered with by a court in appeal; and (3) Whether the case was justified in condoning the very long delay of almost 11-years in filing the second appeal against the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Appeal. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Meaning and scope of the expression “within
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the appellants; issue of inordinate delay by Courts in deciding the bail and anticipatory bail applications. Headnotes† Directions by Supreme Court – Bail/Anticipatory bail of – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 21: Held: 1.1 High Courts to ensure that applications for bail and anticipatory bail pending before them or before the subordinate courts under their jurisdiction are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in directing respondent nos. 2 to 4 to allow rectification of the financial bid of respondent no.1 by treating the amount offered by it as the per day figure and on that basis to compute for the entire contractual period of 1095 days. Headnotes† Tender – Electronic bid – A notice inviting electronic bid was issued for engaging complete Road User Fee (RUF) collection operator for RUF collection from commercial vehicles (non- passenger) at designated locations
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order passed by the Civil Court dismissing the interlocutory application filed by respondent no.1 for amending the written statement and for filing a counter claim in a suit filed by the appellant; and legality of institution of a counter claim against a co-defendant. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII, Rule 6A – Counter- claim by defendant – Suit for declaration filed by the appellant against her sister-in-law-defendant
Issue for Consideration Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Act, 2009 – s.15 – Power of inspection, seizure, etc. – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.165 – Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Respondent authorities conducted a search and inspection at a commercial warehouse belonging to the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court is justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that her complaint was barred by limitation; and whether the subsequent event of removal of the appellant from the post of the Director, CFRGS or initiation Executive Council are in any way linked to sexual harassment or amounts to sexual harassment as described u/s.3(2) of the POSH Act. Headnotes† Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – ss.2(n), 3, 9 – Sexual Harassment –
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants, fall within the category of “speculative investors” so as to disentitle them from initiating proceedings u/s.7 of the IBC; whether the Ordinance/Amendment Act introducing threshold requirements for filing of s.7 IBC applications by the present case. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.7 – NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order and reversed the admission of the application filed u/s.7 by the appellants, holding that they were “speculative investors” and not genuine homebuyers/
Issue for Consideration The High Court has affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide order dated 20.09.2019. Whether respondent- husband should contribute towards the marriage expenses of his daughter. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) – Family Court granted divorce on grounds of cruelty – The High Court, by the impugned judgment, affirmed the decree of divorce – Before this Court, the appellant-wife has confined her claim to seeking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses of their daughter: Held: It
Issue for Consideration The present case concerns the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with the prolonged institutionalisation. The lack of access to education, health, and community life for persons residing homes, must be viewed through the expansive constitutional lens. Whether the institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that although the earlier assessments for the three years were held to be time-barred, yet, the revenue having obtained appropriate sanction from the Commissioner, the limitation thereafter would be governed by s.21 of Act, 1993. Headnotes† Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 – ss.19, 21 – Time limit for completion of assessment and re-assessments – Assessment in certain cases – Earlier assessments for the three years held to be time-barred, yet, the revenue having obtained
Issue for Consideration The complaint of the appellant before the High Court was that the police officers concerned had failed in their duty by not registering a First Information Report apropos the attack and assault on him by four individuals on 13.05.2023. The Division Court dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bonafides. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 r/w. ss.34, 324, 325, 326 – This litigation has its moorings in the communal riots that broke out in Akola City, Maharashtra, on 13.05.2023 owing to a social media post – The
Issue for Consideration The Labour Court vide an Award dated 14.09.1999 held that the four workmen (appointed by the Society as employees to run the Canteen) were in employment of the Bank and their services were illegally terminated. The High Court by the impugned Judgment and Order Court award. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned Judgment and Order or not. Headnotes† Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 – The employees of the Bank formed a Society registered under the provisions of the Act, 1912 – The object behind the formation