Issue for Consideration Whether the delay occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment imposed, u/r.36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, vitiates the order itself. Headnotes† (Discipline and Appeal) Rules – r.36 – The admitted facts are that the respondent while continuing as Supervisor was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the year 2012 – The disciplinary authority passed an order imposing a punishment of stoppage
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to bail. Headnotes† Bail – Grant of – When warranted – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to speedy trial – Prolonged incarceration – Finance Limited (DHFL), a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC),which had availed loan and credit facility of Rs. 57,252 crores and allegedly, an amount of Rs. 34,926 crores had been siphoned off by the appellant by making shell companies – FIR against the appellants filed u/ss.120-B r/w
Issue for Consideration Interpretation of the policy under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (PMGKY-Package). Whether there is ‘requisition’ of the services of doctors and Garib Kalyan Yojana Package – Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 – Prevention and Containment of COVID-19 Regulations 2020 – Requisition of the services of doctors and health professionals – Husband of appellant no.3 was a medical practitioner running a
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would prevail over the respective State Rent Control legislations, in relation to premises let out prior to the commencement of the said Act, as against the its enforcement but before their acquisition or transfer to the Government or any statutory corporation, by which the character of such premises stood transformed into “public premises” within the meaning of the Act. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court declining substitution of a sole arbitrator, however, extending his mandate u/s.29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arbitrator – On facts, the sole arbitrator issued directions requiring the parties to deposit the administrative expenses – Appellants sought time, in an arbitral proceeding, to move an application before the High Court u/s.29A(4) – Thereupon, the sole arbitrator adjourned the
Issue for Consideration Whether Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) on Carrying Cost had to be paid to the Appellant under the remand order dated 18.10.2022 and that too, without compounding of interest and if so, whether, in absence of an appeal against the the direction to pay LPS on Carrying Cost had attained finality; whether, in absence of a cross-appeal against the impugned order, the direction to pay LPS on Carrying Cost cannot be questioned by the first respondent; whether the direction to pay Carrying Cost with LPS is liable to be
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee of a different department of the Central Government; the respondent is an employee’ as contained in s.11 of the POSH Act would mandate that ICC proceedings must be instituted and carried out at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ instead of the workplace of the aggrieved woman where incident occurred and complaint was
Issue for Consideration Whether the challenge preferred by the appellant-contemnor to the judgment of the High Court is sustainable in law; whether the High Court was justified in declining to accept her apology and consequently refusing to remit the Act, 1971 – s.12 – Scheme of – One Seawoods Estates Ltd. challenged the vires of r.20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 before the High Court – Intervention application filed therein that the appellant- contemnor, a former Director, Cultural thereof had issued a
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant-assessee, is entitled to deductions u/s.36(1) (viii), Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of three specific heads of income, being (i) Dividend income on investments in shares (ii) Interest earned on and (iii) Service charges received for monitoring Sugar Development Fund loans. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.36(1)(viii) – Finance Act, 1995 – Whether the appellant-assessee, is entitled to deductions u/s.36(1)(viii) in respect of three specific heads of
Issue for Consideration Whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons u/s.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are the powers u/s.18A of the PC Act, which prescribes the application of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 insofar as the proceedings of attachment are concerned, and the power u/s.102 Cr.PC, i.e., the power of a police officer to seize certain property, co-existent or mutually
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court, was justified in referring the parties to arbitration by allowing the petition u/s.11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appointment of arbitrators a tender and issued a purchase order in favour of the contractor-successful tenderer – Tender prohibited sub-letting, sub-contracting without the prior consent of the owner obtained in writing – Appellant issued notice to the contractor with regard to non-functioning and
Issue for Consideration The High Court has upheld the orders passed by the Tribunal by which the claim of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, for release of the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, was declined. Headnotes† Central Civil Services (Pension) rr.26, 36, 48, 48A – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4 – The deceased employee/AK was selected and joined the Corporation in the year 1985 – He resigned from the job on 07.08.2014 – His resignation was accepted on 19.09.2014 – This was the end of his
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court misinterpreted the import of s.30, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and erred in remanding the matter back for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – map stood settled in the earlier proceedings between the parties in 2001 – However, the private respondents raised the same issue about 17 years later filing an application u/s.30/38 for correction of the map – Dismissed by Revenue Authorities – Writ Petition filed by private
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant could be convicted for an offence lesser than one punishable u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302; Exceptions to s.300 – Conviction u/s.302, when justified – be convicted for an offence lesser than one punishable u/s.302: Held: No – There are no mitigating circumstances on basis whereof the sentence may be reduced by altering the conviction of the appellant for an offence lesser than one punishable u/s.302, IPC – Deceased was inflicted
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the Public Interest Litigation filed by the respondent, assailing the resolution passed by the appellant-Corporation to increase the property tax for the year 2017-18 Corporations Act, 1949 – Economic Policy decision – Challenge to – Public interest litigation filed by the respondent no.1 challenging the revision of property tax by the appellant-Corporation for a period of five years- 2017- 18 to 2021-22, thereby increasing the tax rates in
Issue for Consideration Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2) (v) – One B was killed by masked persons – FIR was registered – A perusal of FIR makes it clear that informant-PW-1 was not an eye-witness to the incident; rather, his knowledge of the occurrence was
Issue for Consideration Challenge by the appellant-wife to the decree of divorce and the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the High Court. Headnotes† Divorce and permanent alimony – High Court granted a decree of divorce, and awarded a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony the appellant-wife opposes the dissolution of marriage, it is in the best interest of both parties that they live apart – Admittedly, the parties have been residing separately since 2012 which is more than thirteen years now, and no substantial or meaningful effort has been made in restoring
Issue for Consideration Instant matter is filed challenging the order rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of powers under – Allegations of false promise of marriage by against the appellant and filing of FIR – Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.376(2)(n) and 417 IPC – Appeal by the appellant along with the application seeking suspension of sentence which was rejected – Challenge to: Held: Powers u/Art.142 invoked in the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the impugned Memo issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration liable to be set aside on the ground of illegality, as it seeks to rely on a superfluous and Amendment) Act, 1988 – s.9A – Powers to reduce, remit or compound stamp duties – Exempting payment of stamp duty on instruments relating to transfer of premises by Cooperative Societies to their members – Issuance of Memo by the Principal Secretary to the Department of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the inordinate delay in framing of charges. In the present case there was delay of more than four years in framing of charges and the Appellant was denied bail by the High Court. Headnotes† Directions by Supreme Court framing of charges – Registrar (Legal and Research) of the High Court Judicature at Bombay filed affidavit as regards the cases remaining pending at the stage of framing of charges and the reasons therefor – As per the chart submitted, a total of 588 cases remain pending at the stage