Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to restoration of 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE Judicial Service-cadre of District Judge, to 25%; reduction of the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in LDCE, and if so, by how many years; percentage of reservation of quota for meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division); the minimum
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the juvenility of respondent No.2 and grant of bail to him. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94(2) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – Penal ss.3/25/27 – Natural guardian/mother of respondent No.2-accused filed applications before the JJB to declare respondent No.2 as a juvenile – JJB in an earlier proceeding relating to respondent No. 2 arising out of a different incident had accepted the date of birth of respondent No.2
Issue for Consideration Deductions claimed cumulatively under the provisions of s.80-HHC and s.80-IA or s.80-IB under Heading ‘C’ of Chapter VI-A, Income Tax Act, 1961, if can be allowed; scope of restriction u/sub-section (9) of s.80-IA, Income Tax Act, 1961 on Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – Chapter VI-A – Heading ‘C’– ss.80-HHC, 80-IA, 80-IB, 80-IA(9) – Deductions u/ss.80-HHC, 80-IA and 80-IB under Heading ‘C’ – Appellant claimed deductions u/s.80-HHC and ss.80-IA, 80-IB, disallowed
Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned orders sustaining dismissal of the appellant from the service requires interference; whether there was any violation of statutory rules; whether there was violation of principles of natural justice; whether, in the instant case, there is ample evidence order dated 01.10.1991, which solely benefited appellant, was fake. Headnotes† Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Allegation against the appellant that she had managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the court of first instance as well as the High Court rejecting the application u/Ord.VII r.11 CPC; and whether the property in respect of which the suit, claim or action has been brought about is a Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11 – Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – ss.2(8), 2(9), 4 – Rejection of plaint – Benami property – Suit for partition, possession, declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction and for
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts of the case there was a breach of s.313, CrPC causing prejudice to the appellants and vitiating the trial against them. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 468, 471, 120B – – ss.5(2), 5(1)(d) – Appellants were convicted u/ss.420, 468, 471, 120B, IPC r/w ss.5(2), 5(1)(d), PC Act and sentenced accordingly – Incriminating circumstances which had come on record against them in the prosecution evidence were not put to them in their examination u/s.313
Issue for Consideration These instant two appeals assail concurrent findings of conviction u/s.326A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence thereof against accused no.1 and accused no.2 respectively appellants herein. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.326A r/w. s.34 – It was alleged appellants herein blocked the way of respondent-victim – Accused no.1-appellant and accused no.3 held the respondent-victim while accused no.2-appellant, poured acid over her and then ran away from the spot – Trial Court convicted all the accused persons – Both the appellants
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or s.528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated u/s.12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Headnotes† Criminal Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.528 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – s.12 – Exercise of power of High Court u/s.482, CrPC (s.528, BNSS) to quash proceedings u/s.12, DV Act – Permissibility: Held: High Courts can exercise power u/s.482,
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the National Commission dismissing complaint filed by appellant; and whether the cause of loss to the premises is due to the seepage water or the heavy rains in Delhi. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 insurance policy – Second survey report – Reliability – Premises of the appellant insured with respondent-insurance company – Due to heavy downpour in Delhi, his premises severely flooded, resulted in extensive damage to the basement and the belongings lying there
2648 : 2025 INSC 727 Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 394 of 2024) 19 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K.V. Viswanathan,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether multiple FIRs registered across different States can be clubbed and consolidated in one of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings – Petition u/Art.32 for clubbing and transfer of FIRs in different States – Petitioner facing 64 FIRs in 10 States – Similar allegations arising out of a common scheme – Writ petition seeking clubbing FIRs within the
Issue for Consideration 1. Whether encashment of bank guarantees furnished under court orders can be treated as “payment of duty” for the purpose of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act? 2. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment apply through such encashment? 3. Whether the Department was right in encashing the guarantees when the civil appeals were pending before this Court? Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Encashment of bank guarantees furnished under interim orders of High Court – Whether such encashment
Issue for Consideration Matters pertains to issues with regard to pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits: (i) non-grant of full pension to the as High Court Judges without taking into consideration the services rendered by them as District Judges. (ii) denial of full pension on the ground of break-in service for a period between the date on which they retired as District Judges and the date on which they assumed the charge as High
Issue for Consideration Once the name of the appellant stands included in the draft NRC, whether the order of the Tribunal, declaring him a foreigner, and of the High Court, affirming the order of the Tribunal, be sustained. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.9 – Citizenship Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 – r.4A(4) – Appellant was declared foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal – The High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal – Whether the findings returned by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from any legal infirmity as to warrant an
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of conviction of the respondent u/ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the demand of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Complainant-teacher applied for a validity certificate and for the grant of the same, spot inspection report had to be prepared by the respondent- officer in Taluka Panchayath – Case of the complainant that
Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee had the power to determine and direct that a particular amount of the fees charged to NRI students be kept in a corpus fund maintained by the State? (b) Whether the are entitled to retain the fees collected for the corpus fund which were to be transferred to the State? Headnotes† Medical Education – Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee – Creation of a corpus fund for scholarships from fees of NRI students – Whether the Committee
Issue for Consideration Whether the 2017 Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in the context of the EIA Notification 2006 for grant of ex post facto environmental clearances (EC) is legal and valid; Whether the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by Procedure (SOP) for projects that have commenced without an EC is legal and valid. Headnotes† Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – EIA Notification 2006 – MoEFCC’s 2017 Notification established process for grant of ex post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearance
Issue for Consideration Whether in light of the Thirteenth Finance Commission, Second National Judicial Pay Commission Report (SNJPC) and the judgment of this Court in the any further direction needs to be issued to various High Courts and State Governments for framing and implementation of rules for the Court Managers. Headnotes† Administration of Justice – Justice Delivery System – Court Managers – Court Managers were introduced
Issue for Consideration Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a judicious manner while declining to the petitioners. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.30, 17, 21, 24-29, 145 – High Court denied anticipatory bail to the Petitioners relying on the confessional statements made by co-accused persons during interrogation
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents- accused(s) setting aside the order of the Trial Court by which it declined to grant bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323, 34, the order of the Trial Court declining to grant bail to the respondents- accused(s) – Interference with: Held: Respondents are alleged to have committed the offence u/s.302, IPC – It may be a fact that the respondent-accused(s) may have carried the injured victim, who later died, to
Issue for Consideration Correctness and legality of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court restored FIR previously quashed, recalling the order of quashment. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.362, 482 – Power under – Scope – Criminal cases were entered into between the parties – However, the complainant, filed an application for revival of the FIRs – High Court ordered revival of the FIRs – Impermissibility: Held: 1.1 s.362 provides that a Court shall not, once it has signed the judgment or final order disposing