Issue for Consideration Whether any interference is required in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court; Whether the 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim-deceased in the year 1995 – Victim died – Deceased was working as an Engineer with the Brtish Telecom and was paid in pounds – The wife and two minor children of the deceased sought compensation – Tribunal found the driver of the truck negligent – The income stood proved and
Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the Oustees-respondents pursuant acquisition of their land for the purpose of development of the residential sector. The issue arose whether the respondents entitled to claim plots rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or at the rate prescribed by the revised policy of 2016. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978 – rule 5 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.39 – Allotment of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court would enable the party to revive a cause of action and save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings of the first appellate court, affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11, Or.23 r.1 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Revival of cause of action – Res judicata – Limitation – Non-joinder of necessary
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the name of the partnership firm was not mentioned in the statutory notice issued by the appellant/complainant to the respondents u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was also not in the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. Headnotes† Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – ss.138, 141 – Partnership Act, 1932 – Appellant-complainant advanced a loan of Rs.21,00,000/- to the respondent nos.1 and 2 (a partneship firm) for business purposes
Issue for Consideration i) Whether any individual can invoke the jurisdiction of a State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERC) on the plea of public interest. In other words, whether an ERC has the jurisdiction to consider matters in public interest; ii) Whether the Act, 2003 State ERCs to consider and adjudicate the efficacy of a distribution franchisee agreement entered between a distribution licensee and a distribution franchisee. In other words, whether ERCs have the jurisdiction to review the functioning of a distribution licensee to supply the electricity through
Issue for Consideration Whether the services of enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, provided by the appellant fell within the scope of “Healthcare Services” during the disputed period and for exemption from payment of service tax during the said period. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – Exemption notification – “Healthcare Services” – Exemption from payment of service tax – Entitlement to – Services of enrolment, collection,
Issue for Consideration Did the appellants-manufacturers cause to effect the entry of goods into the local area as required u/s.3(1)(a) r/w ss.2(1)(aa), 2(1)(b) and 2(3), M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976, rendering them liable for entry tax for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008; is there an the manufacturers and the ultimate retailers. Headnotes† M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 – s.3(1)(a) r/w ss.2(1)(aa), 2(1)(b) and 2(3) – Incidence of taxation – “entry of goods into a local area”; “entry tax”; “caused to be effected the entry of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the legal heirs of a deceased teacher in an aided school would be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the Maharashtra Rules), 1982. Headnotes† Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982 – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity – Claim of – Death of the teacher working in an aided school – Claim of gratuity by the son-petitioner under the 1972
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence; whether in light of the Evidence Act and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a conversation between spouses can be permitted to be given in recorded evidence should be disallowed solely on the ground that it is violative of the privacy of one of the spouses; and as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, declining permission to the husband to corroborate his evidence in the form of recording on his mobile phone and
Issue for Consideration Whether objection of res judicata can be taken to bar the suit u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11 – Rejection of plaint – Appellant purchased a disputed property from one HB, who had in turn purchased it know that defendant no.1, claiming to be a co-owner filed a suit for partition against JA and others and also secured an ex parte decree in his favour – Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court that as some of the defendants before the first appellate court had passed away and their legal heirs were not brought on record in accordance with the provisions of Or.XXII r.4 CPC, the first first appeal on merits and decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs as it already stood abated. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXII rr.4(3), 10A – Duty of pleader to communicate to court death of a party – Title suit instituted by
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an appeal under CrPC would be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.2(wa) r/w proviso to s.372; s.378 – Counterfeit products were sold in the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting the appellants for offence u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. Headnotes† Appeal against acquittal – Reversal of acquittal – co-accused-‘S’ (mother and wife of the appellants) and her associates had a quarrel with deceased and ‘S’ threatened to kill the deceased, however, matter was reported to the police and was amicably settled – Later, on receiving a phone call from ‘S’,
Issue for Consideration Whether in the attending facts and circumstances, the High Court could have accepted a submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, to conduct narco-analysis test of all the accused persons (including the appellant) and other witnesses, during the investigation; whether form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other evidence on record; whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test, as a matter of an indefeasible right. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(3) and Art.21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the preventive detention of the detenu is in accordance with law. Headnotes† Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 – ss.3, 2(j), (o) – Order of detention u/s.3(1), if sustainable: Held: No – s.2(j) states that a person who is covered by the Act – In the present case, the facts and circumstances do not fall under the category of a public order situation – The detention order does not state any reason as to how the actions of the detenu were against the public order of the State – Given the
Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below had rightly held that the Railway authorities could not have raised the demand notice after the delivery of goods. Headnotes† Railways Act, 1989 – s.66 – Power to require statement relating to the description of goods – notices alleging misdeclaration of goods, for consignments sent through the Railways – Respondents paid the demands raised but sought refund of the amount paid contending that the demand notices issued after the delivery of the goods were illegal – Claim allowed by Railway Tribunal
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in observing that since no offence of extortion u/s.383 IPC is made out, consequently, no offence u/s.387 IPC would be made out. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.383, 387 – On 22.05.2022, when the complainant was three unknown persons carrying rifles in their hands, stopped and threatened him to close down his business of betel nut – They further threatened that he could carry on the business only if he would pay five lakhs per month to the accused person – On the complainant’s
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the National Commission imposing liability on the Development Authority to pay for interest paid by the respondents-buyers for loans secured for the flat, on account of of possession of flats. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1985 – Compensation – Liability of the Development Authority to pay interest on the loan taken by the buyers for delay in delivery of flats/plots – On facts, consumer complaint by the buyer for refund of money
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the cognizance on the complaint u/ss.498A rw s.34 IPC was taken beyond the limitation period as mandated u/s.468 CrPC; and whether the prima facie case u/ss.498A rw s.34 IPC was made out against the appellant-husband or his family. Headnotes† 1973 – s.468 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 34 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – Allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the appellant-husband and in-laws, by the respondent no.2-wife – Both parties police officer
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether letter dated 25.09.2019 sent by the Deputy Secretary of State Government can be construed to be an order - Connectedly, whether the appellants would be entitled to the relief of deemed closure, as on 27.10.2019 by virtue of the in s. 25-O(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) What would be the meaning of the phrase ‘appropriate Government’ and whether in the facts of this case, it was the appropriate Government acting in the matter of the closure - if not what is the effect in law, thereof.