Issue for Consideration Allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against the respondent no.2-accused. She was granted bail by the High Court. Whether the grant of bail to the respondent no.2-accused has resulted into travesty of justice. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, (Prevention) Act, 1956 – s.3 and s.4 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(w), s.3(2)(va) and s.15A(3) – The prosecution case as against respondent no.2 was that she while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-LB in the suit schedule properties; whether the view taken by the trial Court was of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles. Headnotes† Suit – Declaration of title – Registered Will – Family settlement – Distribution of the properties – Plaintiff-LB (second wife of MR) filed a suit being original suit no. 2 of 1991 for
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the facts and circumstances disclosed in the complaint, supported by compelling medical evidence of grievous injuries, including complete genital mutilation, mandatorily required registration of an FIR; whether the gravity custodial torture, the systematic cover-up by local police machinery, and the inherent conflict of interest arising from the pendency of cases punishable under NDPS Act against the appellant necessitate transfer of investigation to the CBI; and whether FIR registered against the appellant u/s.309
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent subject to the fulfilment of the condition stated. Headnotes† Public Property – Occupied for over three decades despite defaults in making the balance payment therefor – Long-drawn litigation – High Court directed the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent on payment of Rs.3 crore in three monthly instalments despite noting that the market
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of FIR. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR – Complainant alleged non-execution agreement to sell against the appellants – FIR lodged as also suit for specific performance filed – Arrest of the appellants and subsequently released on bail – Appellants filed for quashing of FIR – High Court dismissed the petition without addressing the merits
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the expunction of strictures passed by the High Court against the Judicial Officer. Headnotes† Strictures – Strictures against the judicial officers – Expunction – High Court passed strictures against the Judicial Officer that granting bail to the accused in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the accused; and that the act of the Judicial Officer tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and, ignorance and disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, and directed
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the question of existence of an arbitration agreement should be left for the arbitral tribunal to decide; (ii) whether clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the contract and relied upon by the appellant would constitute an arbitration as contemplated u/s.7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (iii) whether clause 32 of Instructions to Bidders negates the existence of an arbitration agreement. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sub-section (6-A) of s.11 – Existence of
Issue for Consideration Whether the order rejecting application(s) seeking condonation of delay for setting aside abatement and substitution of legal representatives of deceased appellant suffers from any legal infirmity; if the answer to (a) is in the negative, whether the wholly or partially, or not at all, on account of non-substitution of LRs of deceased defendant-appellant no.2. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXII; Or.XLI r.4 – Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants (‘SC’ and ‘RB’), inter alia, for
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the interpretation of s.32-B of the NDPS Act by the High Court that u/s.32-B minimum punishment is considered as maximum punishment. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.32-B – Factors to be taken into minimum punishment – High Court’s understanding that u/s.32-B minimum punishment is considered as maximum punishment; and that at the time of imposing sentence the trial court to keep in mind the factors as provided in clauses (a) to (f) of s.32-B – Correctness: Held:
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused no.1 u/s.120B, IPC and ss.7, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by reversing the finding of acquittal of the Trial Court. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Demand-and- trap proceedings – Evidentiary standard to prove – PW1- complainant submitted the insurance claim and requested the appellant-accused no.1 (Administrative Officer in the Insurance Company) for early disposal of the claim – As
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the Limitation Act applies to conciliation proceedings u/s.18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), and even if not, whether time-barred debts can be (ii) Whether the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings u/s.18 of the MSMED Act, and whether time-barred debts can be referred to arbitration. Further, what is the effect of disclosure of the unpaid amount in the buyer’s financial statements as mandated u/s.22 on extending
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a tribal woman or her legal heirs would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not. Headnotes† Succession – Right of inheritance of tribal woman to ancestral property – Legal heirs of a woman belonging to a belonging to their maternal grandfather – Suit dismissed by the courts below holding that the legal heirs failed to establish their right over such property by way of custom, showing that female heir entitled thereto – Correctness: Held: Keeping with the principles of justice,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the courts below and holding the Will was vitiated due to existence of suspicious circumstances, non-mention of the existence of wife and failure to give reasons for Will. Headnotes† Will – Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a Will – Ascertainment – Suit by the appellant-nephew of the testator of the Will that his deceased uncle bequeathed certain land to him and 1st respondent is not testator’s
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the usage of electronic communication can also be extended to the procedure governing the service of a notice, contemplated u/s.35 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.2, 35, 63, 64, 71, 94, 193(3), 530 – Notice by the Investigating Agency – Usage of modes of electronic communication – Permissibility – Order passed by this Court directing the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court quashing the summons issued against respondent u/s.319 CrPC by the trial court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing – High Court quashed the summons issued against respondent u/s.319 by the trial court – Challenge to: Held: Summoning order passed by the trial court restored and the impugned order set aside – Power u/s.319 must be exercised sparingly – However, where the evidence
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled to family pension of her late husband, and whether a denial of such relief was justified. Headnotes† Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 – Appellant’s husband, a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian Railways died in harness – Claim of the Appellant for family pension was denied on the ground that it is not admissible to the wife of an employee whose services were not regularized – Justifiability: Held:
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court rejecting the claim raised for appointment by post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 – rr.8(2), 18(4) – Number of appointments to be made – Appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions
Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Evidence – Charges not doubt – Courts below strongly relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW17 (injured child witness), convicted the appellant for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and imposed death sentence –
Issue for Consideration The primary issues arising for consideration are: first, whether the CERC Regulations, 2019 bar respondent no. 1 from supplying free power to the appellant-State beyond 13%; and second, whether respondent no. 1 could have invoked the High for aligning the Implementation Agreement with the CERC Regulations, 2019. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019 – Regulations 44 and 55 – Note 3 of Regulation 55 – Respondent no.1, a generating company,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards commutation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant for committing brutal murder of his wife, sister-in- law and his three children. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing – Death sentence – Commutation murder by the appellant of his wife, sister-in- law and his three children – Motive was that the appellant accused his wife and sister-in-law of being promiscuous and that he had not fathered the three children – Trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.302