Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to whether a plea of estoppel in law can be permitted to be raised by a party ignoring its conduct that resulted in the other party altering its position to its detriment in view of such conduct. Headnotes† Code of Civil s.92 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9, 37 – Estoppel in law – Doctrine of estoppel by conduct – Doctrine of election – Appellants and the respondents claim to be trustees of a Charitable Trust – Dispute arose between them –
Issue for Consideration Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable, warranting cancellation of bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – When warranted – A2, a celebrity along with co-accused, was charged inter alia u/ss.120B, 364, 302, 201 and 204, IPC for the murder of a man, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and beaten to death by the accused for sending objectionable messages to A1, partner of A2 –
Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, and declined from interdicting the summons dated 16.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 respectively, issued to the petitioner u/s.70 of the Central Goods and Services Act) by the Commissioner, Central Good and Services Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate (respondent no.1). Headnotes† Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – Bar under: Held: Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of s.6 of the CGST Act and the equivalent State enactments
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the non-mentioning of the income shown in the income tax return for four financial years in the Form 26 Affidavit and its portrayal as “Nil” by the respondent no.1-returned candidate would amount to non-disclosure, thereby rendering the and making her election liable to be declared void u/s.100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether such non-disclosure constitutes a corrupt practice, rendering her election liable to be declared void u/s.100(1)(b); and does such non-disclosure amount to a violation of
Issue for Consideration Appellants, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of wines, liquors, and spirits, sell whisky under the brand names ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, both of which are registered trademarks. The appellants also hold a registered trademark as the house mark of Appellant No.1, and is used both in India and internationally across various product lines. Respondent was marketing whisky under the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entertaining a claim for correction of date of birth in the service record after a delay of 25 years. Headnotes† Industrial dispute – Date of birth – Claim for correction of date of birth record after a delay of 25 years by the workman – Permissibility – Award by the Industrial Tribunal permitted the change in date of birth of the respondent- workman in the service record, after 25 years of joining service, from 1960 to 1972, based on a Transfer/School Leaving
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court enlarging the accused on regular bail u/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483 – Enlargement on FIR registered against the accused and others under the provisions of IPC and the Arms Act, for abducting certain individuals, violently attacking them with dangerous weapons, and causing grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the complainant’s son – Accused was absconding,
Issue for Consideration Whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such arbitration proceedings; after appointment of an arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whether it Court in such disposed of proceedings to issue any further ancillary directions concerning the arbitration proceedings that have commenced pursuant to appointment of the arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.35, 42A – Oral family settlement entered
Issue for Consideration This appeal is by widow of the deceased convict against the judgment and order of the High Court whereby conviction of her husband, u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been upheld. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as a lower division clerk in the Passport Office – Allegation against the accused that he required complainant to pay Rs.200 as gratification amount over and above the lawful amount of Rs.1000 – The Trial Court convicted the accused upon finding that lodging of complaint and
Issue for Consideration Whether applications filed u/ss.7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 by the tenant without deposit of rent after lapse of statutory period of thirty days, along with an application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, rejected by Court of Small confirmed by the High Court is justified. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act) – s.7 – When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – General Clauses Act – Benefit of
Issue for Consideration The issue pertains to fixation of tariff by the Paradip Port Authority (Earlier Paradip Port Trust). Whether it would be appropriate if an expert appellate body is constituted to hear appeals against the orders passed by the adjudicatory board/Tariff Authority for Major Act, 1963 – Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – In C.A. No.10542 of 2025, an agreement was executed between the parties, namely appellant-Paradip Port Trust and respondent-Paradeep Phosphates Ltd on 03.08.1985 for use of ‘captive berth’ in terms of the conditions laid
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.13 and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention – ss.13(1)(d), 13(2), 7 – Illegal gratification – Demand and accetance – Case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against the Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant working in the same office, by the complainant – Trap laid, the Village
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the judgment passed by the High Court upholding the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee confiscating and invalidating the Caste Certificate of the appellant and his father for the Headnotes† Social status certificate – Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Caste claim – Confiscation and invalidation – Appellant-student became eligible to medical admission on basis of caste claim of belonging to Koli Mahadev tribe, however his caste certificate, had
Issue for Consideration Whether the custody of the minor children in question ought to be handed over to the appellants-adoptive parents. Headnotes† Custody – Of minor children – Principle of best interest of children – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of s.3 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Custody of the minor children was taken away from the appellants-adoptive parents by the Police based on an FIR and they were handed over to the Child Welfare Project Director and Integrated Child Protection Services –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the review of the judgment in the case of Dheeraj Mor v Hon’ble High Court of Delhi wherein three Judge Bench held that the members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as district judges either by way of promotion or Limited that u/Art.233(2) of the Constitution, an advocate or pleader with 7 years of practice could be appointed as district judge by way of direct recruitment, in case not already in the judicial service; and that the rules framed by the High Court debarring judicial officers from staking their
Issue for Consideration The High Court set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner – herein in Civil Suit No.447/2025. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso Trial Court granted ex parte injunction in favour of petitioner- herein (original plaintiff) – Respondents herein (original defendants) invoked supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.227 – The High Court held, inter-alia, that the trial Court has not considered the suit
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307, 353, 332, – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that Head Constables-PW 1 and PW 2 escorted undertrial prisoner from one place to another for the court proceedings – Appellant- Jail official accompanied them, and after court, suggested the constables to return in a private vehicle
Issue for Consideration Scandalous remarks made against a High Court Judge in a Transfer Petition. Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated against the lawyers involved in the filing of the petition. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Scandalous allegations made against High Court Judge was filed seeking transfer of a Criminal Petition from the High Court of Telangana to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, wherein scandalous remarks were made against the High Court Judge hearing that matter – Dismissed – In view of the remarks made, contempt notice
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether after allowing induction of women in a particular corp or branch under section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, can the Respondents by way of a policy and/or administrative instruction restrict the number of women candidates joining the said branch; (ii) Whether the India with regard to enrolment of women in JAG course is ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘gender-specific’. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 16, 33 – Army Act, 1950 – s.12 – A notification u/s.12 of the Army Act, 1950 was issued for the
Issue for Consideration In the instant petition, the issue centres around the disturbing pattern of dog bites in the country. Whether immediate steps need be taken to take care of the menace of dog bites leading to rabies. Headnotes† Directions by the Supreme Court – Menace of dog the visually impaired persons, young children, elderly persons – Immediate action required – Directions issued: Held: (i) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and