Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the dismissal of the partition suit u/Ord.XII r.6 CPC by the Single Judge of the High Court based on the admission, and that too on its own motion without an application being filed by the other party. Headnotes† Code of Civil on admissions – Suit filed by the appellant u/s.6 of the 1956 Act for partition, injunction and accounts involving five properties, held by the appellant’s father against the legal heirs of appellant’s brother and his sister-respondent no. 6 – Parties previously involved
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that since the appellant was a transferee pendent lite of judgment debtor, therefore, in view of provisions of Rule 102 of Or.XXI of CPC, the application filed by the appellant under of Or.XXI CPC was not maintainable. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, RR.97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 – In 1996, respondent no.1-tenant filed a special civil suit no.97/1996/B against MK for dissolution of partnership, recovery of profit and ejectment – No
Issue for Consideration Whether the evidence led, in the instant case, justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 attack was allegedly committed upon victim-deceased – On 10.05.2016, respondent no.2 along with other persons stopped his car near victim and taunted him stating that he and his family should die of shame for not having taken action against the acid-attack assailants – Victim returned
Issue for Consideration Whether the petition filed by the petitioner herein u/Or.18 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rightly rejected by the High Court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.18, r.17 – Court may recall and examine witness – Power under the petition filed by the petitioner u/Or.18, r.17 – Correctness: Held: Power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit – Parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any
Issue for Consideration The questions arose for consideration whether the appellate tribunal and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission justified in rejecting the appellant’s claim of additional capitalization due to replacement of the damaged the self-insurance policy of the appellant covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs; and whether the Member Secretary of NRPC should have been directed by the appellate tribunal to issue revised availability certificate for the transmission assets. Headnotes† Central Electricity
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court partly allowing the appeal of the respondents, enhancing the compensation and fastening the liability company. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.147 – Fatal accident – Compensation – Liability of the insurance company – Tractor insured with the appellant-insurance company attached to a trailer, and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver,
Issue for Consideration Whether the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course under Scheduled Castes PwBD quota was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed u/Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† course – Person with benchmark disabilities – The appellant being a person with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste was denied admission to the MBBS UG course despite standing high in merit in his category owing to his disability –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant- purchaser for specific performance of contract; and whether the appellant entitled to the refund of the amount purportedly paid as advance money. s.22 – Specific performance of contract – Refund of advance money – Agreement for sale-ATS between the parties pertaining to suit property for a sale consideration – Appellant-purchaser issued cheques towards the advance amount – Agreement stipulated that balance
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that a licensed stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether the conviction of the appellant-licensed stamp vendor for offences punishable sustainable. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.2(c) – Public servant – Stamp vendors, if public servants – Appellant-licensed stamp vendor, apprehended for selling Rs.10/- stamp paper at Rs.12/- – Trial court held the appellant guilty for
Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are arising out of the two impugned orders dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 by which the Division Bench of the High Court declared re-election of all the office bearers since it was held that the electoral college itself was flawed and appointed re-elections. Furthermore, it was held that the amendments to the bye-laws had not been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution of Church of South India (CSI) and it was held that the Special Meeting of the Synod held on 7th and 8th March 2022 was not duly
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) affirming the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court which had upheld the decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. Effect of fraud or mistake – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.6 – Grounds of exemption from limitation law – Petitioner filed suit seeking cancellation of sale deed on the ground that fraud was played upon her to sign the sale deed and thereby transfer the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the NCLAT which approved the judgment and order passed by the NCLT subject to the modifications/clarifications made by it, by upholding the dismissal of the Company Applications filed by the the Resolution Plan of JSW- Prospective Resolution Applicant subject to certain conditions, by the NCLT. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the charge of criminal contempt is proved against the appellants-contemnors beyond all reasonable doubt; whether the conviction of the appellants by the High Court for criminal contempt of Court and the sentence imposed ought to be upheld. Headnotes† – ss.15(1) r/w 18(1) – In Execution Petition filed by the decree holder, contemnors produced interim orders passed by the High Court staying the decree – On verification it was found that the said orders were fraudulently created by committing forgery and impersonation in the
Issue for Consideration Whether an arbitral tribunal has the authority or power to implead or join a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement as a party to the arbitration proceedings. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Whether an arbitral tribunal has to implead or join a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement as a party to the arbitration proceedings: Held: Arbitral Tribunal has the authority and power to implead Non-Signatories to the arbitration agreement on its own accord. [Paras 109-168] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –
Issue for Consideration The dispute involved in the present case is fixation of inter se seniority in respect of direct recruitment which includes some in-service candidates also recruited under the direct recruitment quota. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service R.25 – Direct recruitment – Sub-Inspectors of Police – The facts of the case reveal that the constables working in the police department were given 20% of the vacancies to compete under the direct recruitment quota and they were to be given seniority over and above the other 80%
Issue for Consideration Whether the engineering and technical service fees/agency commission/charges paid by the appellant and its subsidiaries to the local agent of the overseas supplier were includable in the assessable value of the imported goods (spare parts) under the held by all the lower authorities. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.14(1), (1A) – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 – r.9(1)(a) and (e); Note to r.4 – Assessable value of the imported goods (spare parts), for the purpose of
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Explanation 1 to Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Appellant convicted u/ss.366, 376(2)(g) and 342, IPC and s.3(2)(v), 1989 Act – Challenge to: Held: In a case of gang rape u/s.376(2)(g), IPC an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as
Issue for Consideration Whether the amendment to s.29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (PVAT Act) by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 is constitutionally valid or not. Headnotes† Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Amendment to s.29 – Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 to s.29 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 – High Court held that the amendment cannot be declared as invalid: Held: On a perusal of the un-amended s.29 of the Act and its amended version, it is evident that under the un-amended provision, the
Issue for Consideration 1. Whether the present digital KYC / e-KYC / video-KYC framework is inaccessible to persons with disabilities? 2. Whether the regulatory authorities (RBI, SEBI, TRAI, PFRDA, IRDAI, DoT) have failed to ensure reasonable accommodations KYC processes? 3. Whether the mandatory requirement of capturing a “live photograph” and conducting a “liveness check” (through blinking, reading text on screen, etc.) is discriminatory and violative of Article 21 read in conjunction with Articles 14, 15 and 38 of the