Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings u/s.420, IPC against the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 465, 468, 471 – National Building Code of India, 2016 – Appellant’s society was running an educational having height of 14.20 metres – FIR was filed u/ss.420, 465, 468, 471; chargesheet filed u/s.420 alleged that the appellant had created a forged Fire NOC and used it to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation for his institution – High Court refused to quash the proceedings
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding that prima facie cognizable offences are made out for investigation against the appellant-officers of the CBI, and directing the Delhi Police to register a case. Headnotes† Code of s.154 – Registration of FIR upon receiving information about cognizable offence – Writ petitions seeking directions for registration of FIR against appellants- officers on deputation to CBI alleging commission of offences u/ss.506, 341, 342, 166, and ss.218, 463, 465, 469, 166
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Protection of Children Act, 2012 – ss.3 r/w 4, 5 r/w 6, 7 r/w 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, 363, 212, 120-B and 201 – Case of the prosecution that the deceased-minor girl was raped and sodomised and the accused-appellants were seen in close proximity to her shortly before she went missing
Issue for Consideration Whether there is any cogent material or evidence to indicate that the appellants had indulged in cutting of trees or its branches or digging up the land and thereby causing substantial damage so as to bring the case within the ambit of s.3(2)(b), Tamil Protection Act, 1955. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – s.3(2)(b) – Suit filed by the respondents claiming to be the owners of the subject land seeking permanent injunction against the appellants restraining them from cutting trees or from causing
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC is sustainable; was the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the overt acts attributed to her left the deceased-victim with no option except to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – when not attracted – Deceased-victim and the first accused-appellant were immediate neighbours however, they were not on cordial terms and used to be at loggerheads – Case of the prosecution that victim took tuition classes in her house and that there used to be persistent noise
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondents having applied in reserved category, and availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to participate in the recruitment process and secured more than the unreserved candidates in the written test and trade test can be vacancies. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Migration of reserved candidates scoring higher in the merit test to unreserved category – Permissibility – Recruitment in ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Special Force – Respondents, applied
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement into the original of service without back wages. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11A – Powers of the labour court, tribunals – Allegations against the respondent-duftery- cum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account of misconduct/irregular loan sanction –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order by the High Court permitting the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable, to be considered for recruitment under unreserved Recruitment – Appointment of OBC candidate to unreserved candidate – Permissibility – Recruitment of Constables – OBC candidates availed age relaxation for participation in the recruitment process, however, declared unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last
Issue for Consideration Validity of the finding that appellant no.2-doctor, the Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist who conducted the delivery of newborn child, which resulted in death of both woman and newborn child, is guilty of medical negligence and deficiency – Death of a wife-C and newborn child of respondent no.1 – Allegation of medical negligence – The SCDRC found appellant no.1-Nursing home and appellant no.2-doctor medically negligent on the ground that they did not exercise due care and caution in treating C but held that
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants, being allottees of an apartment in a project developed by the erstwhile Corporate Debtor and having admittedly paid a sum of Rs.57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs.60,06,368/-, are to be treated as belated claimants entitled only to deposit under Clause 18.4(xi), or whether, their claim having been duly verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, they are entitled to possession in terms of Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.62 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the decision of the High Court to uphold the appellant-bidder’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for not furnishing Joint Venture agreement justified; and whether the appellant would have stood disqualified since exclusively committed to the State Mining Corporation. Headnotes† Tender – Notice inviting tender – Clause (5)D and Clause (5)B – Disqualification – 1st respondent invited Tender for coal beneficiation and managing logistics for Thermal Power Project –
663 : 2025 INSC 1079 Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020) 08 September 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration The APTEL dismissed the appeals (Appeal no.135 of 2018 along with – Electricity Appeals – When experts bodies like the CERC, the APTEL and the Central Electricity Authority have taken a particular view: Held: When various expert bodies like the CERC, the APTEL and the Central Electricity Authority after considering the relevant material on record
Issue for Consideration Whether the order impugned conforms to the scope of review of an order u/s.114 and Or.47 of CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or.47 – The subject matter of the appeal arises from the steps taken by the appellant in I.A no.1199 of decree in terms of her status as one of the co-parceners and entitling her to an equal share along with the father and the brother – On 08.03.2019, the Trial Court dismissed IA no.1199 of 2018-a petition to amend the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 – The appellant filed CRP
Issue for Consideration Whether this Court should, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.32 of the Constitution of India, secure the effective implementation of s.6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 by directing time-bound rule- making and, until such rules are notified, ensuring that marriages received for registration under the existing statutory arrangements without discrimination. Headnotes† Anand Marriage Act, 1909 – s.6 – Effective implementation of s.6 – General directions to all respondent States and Union Territories: Held: i) Every respondent that
Issue for Consideration Whether the order of the High Court directing pay and recovery is sustainable. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Owner of utility vehicle was involved in an accident – Five claim petitions were filed – The utility vehicle was not entitled to carry passengers by reason of the specific restriction in the policy which is evident from “Limitation as to Use” – The High Court ordered “pay and recover” – Correctness: Held: It was admitted by the Branch Manager in
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while invoking the Proviso to s.100(5), CPC, was correct in referring to and applying s.67, Indian Succession Act, 1925; whether s.67, Indian Succession Act, 1925 is attracted to determine the succession to the suit schedule property or not. – s.100(5) – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – s.67 – High Court allowed the second appeal on an additional question of law framed without any basis in the pleadings or evidence and relying on s.67, Indian Succession Act, the Will (Exhibit B-3) was declared as a void
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and ss.25, 27 of the Arms Act; and delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the judgment after a period – ss.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 – Murder – Appellant and one co-accused guilty of the alleged offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – One co-accused absconded and three other co-accused acquitted of all the charges – High Court
Issue for Consideration Whether Clause 18.1 of the agreement proscribed payment of pendente lite interest on the sum awarded. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31(7)(b) – Award of interest pendente lite on the sum awarded – Court – Challenge to – Clause 18.1 of the agreement relied upon by the appellant to contend that the agreement between the parties proscribed grant of pendente-lite interest: Held: Arbitral tribunal can be denuded of its power to award pendente lite interest only if the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, by which it disposed of the application filed by the appellant- complainant seeking cancellation of bail of the accused persons on the ground of threats being administered to the witnesses in violation of the release on bail, holding that the appellant as an aggrieved person had a remedy under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and declining to cancel the bail of the accused persons. Headnotes† Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Witness Protection
Issue for Consideration Whether the company petition decided in favour of the Appellant by the NCLT was maintainable u/ss.397 and 398, Companies Act, 1956 Act; assuming that the company petition was maintainable, whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to decide whether the gift deed is valid answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, were the facts on record and the law such so as to support the finding of the NCLT that the gift deed is invalid; whether the Appellant was able to prove that she has been a victim of mismanagement and oppression by the Directors of the