Issue for Consideration The Concurrent findings; disbelieving a will, excluding one out of nine children, who married out of the community, holding the estate of the testator partible, is challenged in the two appeals filed by two defendants. Headnotes† Will – One NS executed Exhibit and registered it – The Will provided for allocation of the properties to the eight (the defendant Nos. 1 to 8) out of the nine children of the testator; the plaintiff having been left out – Thereafter, an injunction suit was filed in the year 1990, against the plaintiff
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the question raised by the State that the delay occasioned, disentitled the workman from challenging the order of termination. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Delay in adjudicating a reference under engaged on a monthly honorarium terminated from service – Application seeking reinstatement after a delay of more than 15 years – Labour Court found the termination illegal and awarded reinstatement with back wages – High Court upheld the award – Challenge to:
SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 3682/2025
Bench
2 judges
Issue for Consideration Whether or not the appellant is a ‘workman’ within the meaning and concept of definition u/s.2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – ‘workman’ – Dominant Nature Test – appellant-cashier in a hotel run by the respondent-management, setting aside his termination order as illegal and directing the respondent to reappoint the appellant with full back wages – Order set aside by High Court holding that the appellant did not fall within the meaning of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has committed any error in constituting the Arbitral Tribunal in exercise of its powers u/ss.11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Act, 1996. Whether the High Court was justified was justified Tribunal on the basis of a prima facie test of arbitrability. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.11(6) and 11(6-A) – Appellant-APGENCO, floated a tender inviting bids from a Consortium of companies for an EPC contract – A Consortium comprising
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether provisions of the SARFAESI Act could at all have been invoked by the Corporation against the Company by issuing the notice u/s.13(2) thereof, seeking to recover of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – ss.13(2), 14, 17 – Enforcement of security interest – Respondent- Company approached the appellant-Corporation for financial assistance to set up a cold storage unit in Nagaland to which the
Issue for Consideration Whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the complaint on grounds that the proximate cause of the loss to the Appellant- Insured was burglary and the insurance policy taken by the Appellant did not cover the loss on account of theft/ company is not liable to compensate the loss to the Appellant. Headnotes† Insurance – Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage) – Theft and fire incident occurred at the factory of the appellant – The thieves intended to steal winding
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant, appointed as Industries Extension Officer pursuant to a common competitive examination in the year 1981 and allocated to the State of Jharkhand upon state reorganization in the year 2001, is entitled to removal of anomalies in his pay scale from the on parity with other similarly situated employees; whether the Division Bench was justified in reversing the Single Judge’s judgement which granted such relief; whether the judgment in Nagendra Sahani would be binding upon the State of Jharkhand in respect of employees who were
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition challenging the legality and validity of sanction order granted by the State Government to prosecute the accused persons. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Offences punishable u/ss.20, 21 – Cognizance of offences – Grant of sanction – FIR registered against the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss.386/387/109/34/120-B IPC as also u/ss.20 and 21 for extortion of illegal money from businessmen and such monies were,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below justified in convicting the appellant for committing offence punishable u/s.376(2)(d) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(d) – Rape – Prosecution rape on the victim-informant – FIR filed against the appellant – Trial court convicted the appellant for committing offence punishable u/s.376(2)(d) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six years – High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant whereas
Issue for Consideration Whether the PPA, as amended on 25.08.2004, is in conflict with the CERC Regulations and the TNERC Regulations of 2005; whether the power generated during the relevant period continuously up to 153 million units from the gas turbine after all trials is firm or infirm power. Headnotes† Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 – s.43A – Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.63, 86(1)(b) – Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff), Regulations, 2004 – Regn. 14(xxiv), 15 –
Issue for Consideration Whether, by virtue of s.103, Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the subject cooperative society, though originally registered under the statute enacted by the appellant-State, stands transformed into a multi-State of the State reorganization. Headnotes† Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 – s.103 – Interpretation – Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 – Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act – Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 – U.P. State
Issue for Consideration Whether expenditure incurred by the head office of a non-resident assessee exclusively for its Indian branches falls within the ambit of s.44C of the Act, 1961, thereby limiting the permissible deduction to the statutory ceiling 1961 – s.44C – Deduction of head office expenditure in the case of non-residents – Interpretation – Whether s.44 merely covers ‘common expenditure’ incurred by the head office attributable to an assessee’s business in India or would also include
Issue for Consideration Whether the trial Court and High Court overlooked the critical flaws and the possibility of planting evidence, thereby committing serious error in recording the conviction of the accused-appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 376(2)(i) and 201 Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3 and 4 – A four year old girl was sexually assaulted – The appellant was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR for the offences punishable u/ss.363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the IPC, 1860 and ss.3 and 4 of the POCSO Act – Appellant was
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction of the Respondents herein u/ss.498-A & 304-B, IPC and s.3/4, DPA as returned by the Trial Court and thus, acquitting them. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Act, 1961 – s.3 / 4 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – Dowry Death – Respondents were convicted by Trial Court u/ss.498-A & 304- B, IPC and s.3/4, DPA – High Court set aside the judgment of conviction, respondents acquitted – Challenge to:
Issue for Consideration Whether the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and, therefore, ought to be dissolved in exercise of power u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Exercise of power under – – High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent-wife and set aside the decree dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion by her – Present appeal by the Appellant-husband: Held: Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down – Matrimonial litigation
Issue for Consideration Whether the trial Court was correct in concluding that plaintiff- appellant was misled into executing the agreement (Exh. A-1) and that the defendant-respondent had suppressed the subsisting mortgage liability over the suit schedule property. Trial Court held that the payments. Headnotes† Sale – Agreement for sale – Sale of immovable property – Concealment of mortgage – The defendant-respondent entered into an agreement for sale undertaking to convey the land admeasuring Seventy-Seven Acres and Twenty-Six Cents to the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the compassionate appointment of a family member on account of death of an employee in service, is as a matter of right; whether the dependent family member of a deceased employee, after being appointed on a post on compassionate basis, appointment on a post higher; and whether a dependent family member of a deceased employee can seek compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was holding, on the ground of eligibility. Headnotes† Service law – Compassionate appointment –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the appellants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation – Claim of – Case of legal that the said victims met with an accident resulting in their death due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver- respondent no.1 – Claim petition by the LR’s – Both the tribunal and the High Court dismissed the claim petitions holding that the
Issue for Consideration Whether in view of s.436-A of the CrPC, the Respondents- accused ought to have been released on bail; in any event, did the prolonged incarceration of the Respondent warrant their release on bail, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution; in statutes that impose a reverse burden of proof, whether the safeguards already in place, are made sufficiently available and effectively feasible, giving the accused persons a chance at establishing innocence; whether interference with the liberty of the accused, in the facts and circumstances, at
Issue for Consideration This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) – Prosecution case was that on receiving the information, appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted – Police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500