Issue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence where there were missing links in the chain of circumstances, whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 201 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 and s.5 r/w s.25(1)(a), Arms Act, of the evidence on record. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Missing links in the chain of circumstances – Accidental gunshot injury – Appellant was convicted u/ss.302, 201 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 and s.5 r/w 25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 for the murder of his friend
Issue for Consideration Whether the conveyance of the suit land by dated 02.11.1971 in favour of defendant no.1 could have been done and, the same having been done, could be sustained in law; whether the subsequent release of the charge created on the suit land by the Society upon receiving the entire dues having been paid by the plaintiff, would give
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC, and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 304, 404 – Murder – Conviction on basis and recovery of articles – Prosecution case that homicidal death of the victim due to gunshot injury by the appellant – Appellant had a grudge against the victim because of certain monetary dispute – After committing the offence, the appellant misappropriated the mobile phone
Issue for Consideration The central issue concerns the legality of the cancellation of allotment by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). Whether UPSIDC is responsible for frustrating the performance of the the cancellation of allotment of the subject land was procedurally defective and legally untenable. Headnotes† Allotment of Land – Cancellation of allotment – Legality of – Appellant-KNMT was allotted subject land by UPSIDC – The allotment letter required KNMT to
Issue for Consideration Whether a recreational park developed on an alleged historical water body ought to be demolished and the water body restored or alternatively, whether the development warrants preservation given its current utility and the inexorable passage – Environmental conservation and development for public welfare – Balance between – Redevelopment of a theme park on the subject property by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) – Writ petition filed alleging that the said redevelopment resulted in the
Issue for Consideration The respondents herein were granted bail by the High Court for the offences punishable u/ss.143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427, 326, 376 r/w ss.511 and 34 of IPC, 1860. Headnotes† Bail – After the results of Assembly elections in the State of West Bengal, a gang of of complainant – Assailants vandalized and looted the house of complainant – The wife of complainant was molested – Local police refused to lodge FIR and advised complainant to leave the village – Numerous incidents with like allegations took place in the State after the
Issue for Consideration Whether the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every three years, fixed by the High Court ought to be enhanced. Headnotes† Permanent alimony – Quantum of – Enhancement of: Held: Respondent-husband’s can pay a higher amount – Appellant-wife who has remained unmarried and is living independently is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future – Furthermore, the inflationary
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the FIR for the offences punishable u/s.376(2)(n) IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, was rejected. Headnotes† Code 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) – Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of establishing sexual relations under false promise of marriage – Complaint by de-facto complainant
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was justified in directing the appellant-Administration for construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and laying of green paver blocks in the kutcha parking, the open Headnotes† UNESCO World Heritage Site – Construction of verandah, not violation of UNESCO guidelines – High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued mandamus to the appellant to construct verandah in front of Court Room No.1 – Non-compliance, contempt issued – Plea
Issue for Consideration Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s.120B r/w ss.420, 468, 471, Penal Code, 1860 and u/s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 filed by the respondent no.2-Bank against the appellants alleging that the accused persons caused wrongful loss of Rs.25.89 lakhs to the Bank – In identical cases on the same set of transactions, a settlement was arrived at between the principal accused and the Bank – Appellants
Issue for Consideration The instant matter arises from a series of encounters reported in the State of Assam (Respondent No. 1), the authenticity of which has been called into question on various counts. The appellant asserted that no meaningful or effective inquiry has been undertaken in respect the guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has been flouted blatantly. Headnotes† Public Interest Litigation – Fake Police Encounters – Directions by the Supreme Court – Whether the allegations made
Issue for Consideration Whether unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi Ridge Forest without requisite permissions as directed by the Supreme Court in its orders in M.C. Mehta v. Union of disobedience. Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling had already commenced on an earlier date, while the relevant application remained pending, constitutes wilful disobedience that obstructed the administration of justice. If the breach by the Respondents is wilful and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on false promise Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal case – Complainant alleged that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage – Complaint made and chargesheet filed against appellant u/ss.376, 376(2)(n), 504, 506 IPC –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under various sections of Penal Code, 1860, when the prosecution failed to conduct fair investigation and had suppressed affidavits of – ss.34, 302, 307 – Murder – Failure to carry fair investigation – Appellants-accused convicted for murder of deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment whereas acquittal of accused no.1 – Bail applications by appellants – Sessions court relied on the
Issue for Consideration Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant Public Notice dated 13.10.2009; whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance? Headnotes† Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – s.3– In Nagaland, for the
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the notification by the Coal India imposing Evacuation Facility Charges constituted a change in law under the Power Purchase Agreement; and as regards the interpretation of Article 10.2.1 vis-à-vis Article 10.5 of the PPA with Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – Power Purchase Agreement – Art.10 – Principles for computing impact of Change in Law – Tariff Adjustment Payment on account of Change in Law – Power Purchase Agreement between the appellants-Discoms and respondent
Issue for Consideration RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme. Whether the fixing of the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2020 for grant of pensionary benefits and that too with law or is discriminatory and arbitrary. Headnotes† Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 – Contributory Provident Fund – After introduction of Pension Regulations, 1990, RBI gave option to the serving and retiring employees to switch
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC, 1908. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 49, 23 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – filed suit for declaratory reliefs alleging that despite the revocation of the agreement to sell and the power of attorney authorising Respondent No.1 to sell the subject property, Respondent No.1 executed the impugned sale deeds in respect of the subject property – Respondents filed
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the I.A. for deletion of name of the appellant from the array of parties was barred by res judicata; whether the appellant is entitled to the (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; and whether the transfer of possession of the suit property was implicit in the decree of specific performance in the facts of the case. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. 1 r.10, Ord. XXII Rule 4 – Suit for specific
Issue for Consideration Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.22 – When not violated – Appellant filed writ petition before corpus on the ground that his son was illegally arrested by CID as appropriate grounds for arrest were not furnished at the time of arrest and thus, the arrest was violative of Art.22 – Writ petition dismissed – Sustainability: Held: If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds