Issue for Consideration Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Act envisages be imposed on the Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.20AA – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Offences under the PoFA Act took place in 2001 and 1985 – Appellants were convicted and sentenced – Mollification of sentence sought by the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the interim custody arrangement made by the family court. Headnotes† Family law – Custody of child – Interim-custody arrangement by the family court – Challenge to Respondent left the matrimonial home, and since then the child exclusively in her care – Appellant employed on rotational overseas assignments, filed petition seeking permanent custody of the child, and during pendency sought interim visitation – Family Court held that as and when the
Issue for Consideration Whether the Secured creditors would have priority of interest over the assets attached under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) and Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act), by virtue of the provisions and RDB Act, 1993; whether the properties of the Judgment Debtors and Garnishees attached under the Provisions of MPID Act, 1999 would be available for the execution of the decrees against Judgment Debtors in view of the Provision of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016.
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suo moto cognizance taken by this Court in child rape cases; and directions to Union and States Government to set up Special POCSO Courts on top priority, and timeline compliances. Headnotes† Protection of Children Act, 2012 – Child rape cases – Alarming increase in number of reported child rape incidents in view of various news reports – Suo- moto cognizance by this Court – Issuance of directions for setting up of special courts exclusively designated for trying offences under the
Issue for Consideration 1. Whether an arbitral award rendered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “Act, 1996”), where the arbitration proceedings ought to have been governed by the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter “MP set aside solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, even when no such plea was raised before the arbitral tribunal in terms of Section 16(2) of the Act, 1996? 2. Whether the decision of this Court in M.P. Road Development Authority & Anr v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of High Court order dismissing the appeal of the accused-appellant and upholding his conviction u/s.304-B of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – Persistent harassment and dowry to victim-deceased – Complainant-father of deceased gave dowry to appellant and his family but they remained dissatisfied and started subjecting deceased to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse – Panchayat meeting was called where appellant demanded certain sum from family of
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is a ‘land grabber’ under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Headnotes† Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – ss.2(d), (e) – ‘Land grabbing’; ‘Land grabber’ before the Special Court was that the appellant was in occupation of a portion of the land belonging to the applicant forming part of survey no.9 whereas the sale deed produced by the appellant showed his property to be in survey no.10 – Appellant was held to be a ‘land
1382 : 2025 INSC 701 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra [(I.A. No. 2079 of 2007, I.A. No(s). 2301-2302 of 2008, I.A. No(s). 3044-3045 of 2011, I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 and I.A. No. 39711 of 2024) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) With (Writ Petition Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the subject land is a Forest Land; whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of C family and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation; whether
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether, due to non-compliance with s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a suit should be dismissed u/Ord. VII r.11 CPC, or whether it should be kept in abeyance, directing the parties to first explore the possibility of settlement by instituting mediation; Court erred in passing the impugned order, keeping the suit in abeyance and sending the parties to mediation as per the PIMS Rules and the 2020 SOP. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.12A – Pre-institution mediation and settlement – Pre-institution mediation, if
Issue for Consideration The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples facing severe administrative issues of crowd management. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XL, R.1 – – Mathura Region – Temples in grip of legal battles – Appointment of advocates as receivers – A stop-gap measure – The instant suit pending for 25 years – Temple trust running through receivers – No effort to conclude the civil proceedings –
Issue for Consideration Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the prayers made by the appellants (victim’s family) for transferring the investigation into the custodial death of the victim, to some other investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness on bail. Headnotes† Custodial death – Transfer of investigation – When to be allowed – ‘nemo judex in causa sua’: Held: The incident involved the death of a young man in police custody by the local police officials, where though an FIR was registered, but
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Division Bench of High Court was justified setting aside the directions related to pendente lite interest, holding that it was not open for the arbitral tribunal to have carved out three periods for payment of interest: future. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Arbitral award – Award of interest for pre-reference and pendente lite period – Respondent engaged services of the appellant for executing a contract relating to Power Project – Appellant
Issue for Consideration Whether the dispute resolution clauses viz. Art.20 in the subject- Concession Agreements, constitute a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Concession Agreement – Art.20 – Whether reveal any express intent to arbitrate: Held: The title of the clause as ‘Mediation by Commissioner’ unequivocally indicates a non-adjudicatory and conciliatory process rather than an arbitration mechanism – There is conspicuous absence of the words ‘arbitration’
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board was bound to accept the OBC certificates submitted by aspirants which, admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the recruitment notification. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment in the format prescribed – Requirement, if mandatory – Appellant-candidate applied for the post of sub-inspector and was called for examination – However, his representation rejected on the ground that he did not submit OBC certificate in the prescribed format and thus,
Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution of the appellants under the UP Gangsters Act satisfies the statutory thresholds prescribed under the Act, when it is based entirely on a single FIR, in which the appellants were already arrested and released on bail, and where no new act or omission of the First FIR i.e., 11.10.2022, and the preparation of the gang chart on 29.04.2023. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.2(b), (c) – First FIR was registered against the appellants and others on 11.10.2022 for
Issue for Consideration Whether by way of the circular dated 30.01.2004 the benefits granted under the statutory notification dated 01.04.2003 could have been curtailed by expanding the exclusionary clause; whether crude degummed soyabean appellant is an agricultural product; what is an agricultural product. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.25 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – s.5 – Export-Import (EXIM) Policy of 2002-2007 – Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was correct in reversing the Order passed by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission thereby exonerating respondent from bearing the entire construction cost for the Bay. Headnotes† – Whether the appellant can recover dues and other charges despite being a stranger to the internal tripartite agreement (ITA) dated 27.12.2019 among the respondents: Held: The respondents executed an ITA wherein they agreed to pool in the power to be generated from their respective
Issue for Consideration In a case covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, whether the High Court erred in holding that the Delhi Arbitration Centre lacked jurisdiction to conduct arbitral proceedings on the ground that the contract between the appellant- and the respondent (based in Bengaluru) provided that the seat for arbitration shall be at Bengaluru. Headnotes† Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006 – s.18(4) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Overriding effect of MSMED Act over
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether clause 11(k) of the appointment letter that employee to work for minimum three years and in default to pay Rs 2 lakhs as liquidated damages on leaving employment amounts to restraint of trade u/s.27 of the Contract Act and/or opposed to public of order passed by the High Court quashing clause 11(k) of the appointment letter and thus, directing the bank to refund the said sum to the respondent-employee. Headnotes† Contract Act, 1872 – s.27 – Agreement in restraint of trade void – Restrictive covenant in the
Issue for Consideration Whether the allegations levelled in the impugned-FIR disclose a dispute of civil in nature; whether the proceedings of the impugned- FIR and the chargesheet filed as a culmination of the investigation is a gross abuse of process of the Court. Headnotes† Penal ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 – The complainant alleged that he had worked on the project of STP plant and drainage pipe line as a sub-contractor for BUL but only a partial payment against the total work carried out was received by him – In this manner, the complainant claimed to