Issue for Consideration i) Whether alienation of land by the District Collector, Medak, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 08.02.2001 was a sale or alienation/allotment; ii) whether any condition was imposed pursuant to the alienation of land by the Government of any condition/restriction imposed by the State Government would be violative of s.10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Headnotes† Telangana Land Revenue Act – ss.25 and 172 – Telangana Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules 1975 – rr.5 and 6 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the effect of the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court on the prosecution case. Headnotes† Witness – Eyewitness – Failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court – Effect on the case that accused persons with a common object, armed with deadly weapons, murdered two persons and attempted to kill others, who are now the injured witnesses – Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 307, rw s.149 and s.302 rw s.149 and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose with regards to admissibility of pension to the employees of the Co-operative Societies who were absorbed with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB); if the answer to the same is yes then what would be the length of service to be counted i.e. would also be counted for determining the qualifying period for calculation of pension or only the service rendered after absorption in the MPSEB would be counted. Headnotes† Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules – rr.3(p), 12(2), 13(1) – Admissibility of pension to
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petition u/s.482 of the CrPC filed by respondent no.2 (through its Director); thereby directing the release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) as payout for sale of certain shares in subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of the same amount, before the Magistrate Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 120B – In FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the appellant received a phone call by a
Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light gained and concerns expressed. (b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts. (c) Whether
Issue for Consideration I. Whether providing exclusionary volume based discounts, imposing contractual terms, refusing supply etc. will amount to abuse of dominant position? II. Whether the functional-discount / “no-Chinese” scheme (including the later TMLA arrangement) imposes conditions under Section 4(2)(a) and Section 4(2)(b) of the Act? III. Whether the LTTSA with Schott Kaisha produced a margin- squeeze proscribed by Section 4(2)(e) of the Act? IV. Whether Schott India tied or bundled NGA and NGC tubes, thereby breaching Section 4(2)(d) of the Act? V.
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled for regular bail. Headnotes† Bail – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 – Unlawful – ss.17, 18, 22C – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Cross- border smuggling of narcotics – Seizure of 2,988.21 kg heroin- laced talc stones imported into India through Gujarat, under the cover of commercial consignments, allegedly originating from Afghanistan and routed
Issue for Consideration The appellants challenge the common judgement and order of the High Court whereby High Court reduced the compensation payable to appellant no.1 and dismissed the claim in so far as it relates appellant no.2 in a case arising out of a claim petition filed under Act, 1988. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Victim-deceased died in a road accident – A claim petition was filed by the appellant no.1-married daughter of deceased and appellant no.2-mother of deceased – Tribunal allowed the claim petition to an extent of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 in a modified term during the pendency of the Suit. Headnotes† Interim injunction – Grant of – When not proper – High Court restored the order of injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 restraining the appellant from dispossessing him or creating any third-party interest in the disputed premises – Interference with: Held: High Court erred in granting the injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 – Respondent No.1 failed to
Issue for Consideration The question arose as regards the determination of the amount due and payable by the respondent-buyer to the appellant-developer for the allotment of flat. Headnotes† Allotment – Allotment of flat – Determination of the amount due Allotment of flat by the appellant-developer to the respondent-buyer – Non-payment of the balance amount – Cancellation of the allotment by the developer – Thereagainst, complaint by the buyer – Despite order of the National Commission, the appellant created third-party
Issue for Consideration Whether it would be just and proper, in the instant case, to accept 78% disability as assessed by the Tribunal appointed Commissioner; whether any amount receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose or loss of earning for calculating compensation; whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Original appellant (who died during pendency of this appeal) met with an accident and
Issue for Consideration An appeal suit along with the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days was preferred. The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days. Whether the delay is to be condoned or not, and if the delay is justifiable, then whether the case or be dismissed on procedural grounds. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.3A and s.151 – In the first round of litigation, respondents could not succeed in setting aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit, and hence they preferred
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction erred in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Dowry Conviction under – When not sustainable: Held: The term “cruelty” is being misused and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances – The tendency of roping sections 498A, IPC and 3 & 4, DP Act, 1961 without mentioning any specific dates, time or
Issue for Consideration Whether while exercising power u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has to confine its consideration as to the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties; If so, whether it would be permissible, while to hold that some of the claims raised are non-arbitrable or fall within excepted category. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – In a nutshell, the case of the appellant, inter alia, is that while exercising power u/s.11 of the 1996 Act, the Court has to
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence u/s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – of abetting her then husband (main accused) in acquiring disproportionate assets – Sustainability: Held: Admittedly, the appellant’s husband acquired assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name – Appellant’s case falls
Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offence punishable u/s.13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Act by the trial Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes† – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – The complainant sought compensation for trees that dried due to drought – Allegation that appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report – A trap was laid for appellant – It was alleged that at
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused persons based on the testimony of the IOs which was founded only on s.161, CrPC statements of the witnesses; whether present was a case of two probable views, one favourable to the accused ought to be taken. Headnotes† Appeal against acquittal – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.120B – Murder – 71 out of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses turned hostile
Issue for Consideration An opportunity of being heard was not given by the Special Judge to the appellant-accused before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Whether opportunity of being heard is required in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s.223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Proviso to sub-section (1) of s.223 – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44(1)(b) – Examination of complaint u/s. 223 BNSS – Opportunity of being heard to the accused – In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard
Issue for Consideration The Court was seized of a matter concerning the contemptuous conduct of a Tehsildar who forcibly evicted home dwellers and defied court orders. Court appreciated the factual scenario in light of principle of rule of law. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – of their houses via representation to revenue authorities – Not considered – Writ petitions filed against revenue authorities’ eviction attempt without considering Respondents’ representation – Direction to Appellant (the then Tehsildar) by High Court to
Issue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the legality and propriety of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of Respondent had initiated a suit against the appellant wherein the Single Judge of the High Court passed an order dated 20.08.2024 – Later, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (E-edition) titled ‘why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of