Issue for Consideration Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them u/s.306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Victim-deceased and accused no.7 got married on 15.09.2013 – Relationship deteriorated – It is alleged that persons came to the residence of the victim and abused him and his family members with filthy language – Accused no.7 left with other accused persons to her parental house – Victim committed suicide on 09.12.2013 – Chargesheet filed against the appellants u/s.306 of IPC –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction in public interest by directing the KMC to initiate demolition of the unauthorised construction. Headnotes† Unauthorised Construction – The High Court directed the police authorities to give notice to all constructed premises by themselves – In case, they continued to remain in occupation, it was directed that the occupants to be evicted by deployment of adequate police force – After the vacation of premises, the KMC authority was directed to initiate demolition of the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the violation of human rights on refusal to register FIR by the Inspector of Police as also using of objectionable language while talking to complainant’s mother; and correctness of order of the State Human Rights Department to pay compensation to the complainant with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant-Inspector of Police. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – Human Rights Act, 1993 – s.2(d) – Human Rights – Violation of – Refusal to
Issue for Consideration In ‡M. Hakeem and Anr.’s case, this Court held that while exercising powers u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Court hearing the petition had no power to “modify” the Award, of two judges and three judges of this Court have either modified or accepted modification of the arbitral awards. In view of the divergent and contrasting judicial opinions as regards the power of the court u/s.34 to modify an arbitral award, the matter has been placed before the Constitution
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court allowing the Application for Speaking to Minutes and dismissing the Procedure, 1908 – Application for Speaking to the Minutes – Scope of – Dispute pertaining to access of pathway – Settlement between the parties and respondent ready to leave access of pathway and accordingly, order passed by the High Court – Subsequently, respondent
Issue for Consideration Whether the contractual service rendered prior to the appellants’ regularisation in 2015 ought to be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with r.17, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Headnotes† (Pension) Rules, 1972 – rr.17, 2(g) – Counting of service on contract – Appellants initially appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularised – Period of contractual service prior to regularisation, if to be counted for grant of pension: Held: Yes – r.17
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11(d) appellant herein was assigned a vacant site by the special tahsildar – He executed a power of attorney (registered on 06.01.1978) in favour of his father for purpose of construction – Contrary to which, father of appellant executed a sale deed on 10.10.1988 in favour of second
Issue for Consideration The present appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court and vide order dated 18.12.2003, the writ petition was dismissed. The present appellants thereafter in the matter and the same was also dismissed by the High Court. Headnotes† Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – s.5 – A land was sold to R, predecessor-in-title of the appellants in the year 1946-47 and a
Issue for Consideration Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby the High Court quashed proceeding u/ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent-husband. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w. s.149 and other in-laws harassed appellant-wife physically and mentally and also demanded dowry – Appellant started residing at her parental home – On 27.10.2020, respondent-husband and other in-laws went to parental home of appellant and threw chilli powder in her eyes, abused
Issue for Consideration Streamlining of the counselling process in NEET-PG; curbing the malpractice of seat blocking to ensure transparency and fairness in the admission process; compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the High Court to the respondents for seat blocking in NEET- PG Headnotes† Education/Educational Courses – Post Graduate Medical Courses – Admission process – NEET PG counselling – Malpractice of seat blocking – Prevention of – Need for transparency and fairness – Directions issued to the concerned
Issue for Consideration Constitutionality of ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead are challenged. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1) (a)(i) – Constitution of India – Art.246 and Entry 95 of List I read with Entries 11-A and 46 of List III – Power to determine pecuniary jurisdiction: Held: There is no doubt
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Courts declaring the appointment of appellant to be illegal making him liable to be terminated from service forthwith. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Recruitment process – – Appellant appointed to the post of assistant teacher – Two years thereafter, writ petition by first respondent alleging that the appointment of the appellant based on manipulation in TET examination certificate wherein he showed his caste status under Most Backward Class (MBC)
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the notice served by the appellant-Operational Creditor upon the Key Managerial Personnel-KMP of the respondent-Corporate Debtor at their registered office constitutes valid service of the statutory demand notice u/s.8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy a petition u/s.9 for initiation of CIRP against the respondent-Corporate Debtor. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.8 and 9 – Insolvency resolution by operational creditor – Demand notice to corporate debtor – Valid service of statutory demand
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainability of the order passed by the High Court granting 15 days interim custody of the minor children to the father. Headnotes† Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Custody of children – 15 days interim custody to the father permanent custody of children, one son and one daughter – Family court restrained respondent-father from forcibly removing the minor children from the custody of the mother – Family court granted visitation rights to the father – On petition of the father, High Court granted
Issue for Consideration Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint by the High Court of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise – Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Civil Procedure Code is a
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 468, 471, 420, 120B – Cross-FIRs filed – Subject FIR registered by the appellant against the accused persons, quashed qua the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Interference with: Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court relating to compensation awarded for the death of wife-pillion rider in an accident. Headnotes† Motor vehicles – Fatal accident – Compensation – Death an accident – Appellants, husband and children of the deceased, sought compensation – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,81,966/- – Deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family comprising of the deceased and only two
Issue for Consideration Issue relates to the determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharges by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.42(2) – Rajasthan Electricity and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 – Regulations 90, 2(a)(60) – Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) – Determination of: Held: The CSS has to be determined based on the prevailing tariff rates – Neither the 2003 Act nor the 2014 Regulations makes the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reducing the percentage of disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 while determining the compensation. Headnotes† Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Schedule to the Act – Functional disability – Appellant, a forging machine operator met with an accident while operating the machine losing one or more phalanges of four fingers of his right hand – Commissioner allowed 100% disability and determined the compensation – In appeal, High Court while determining the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for quashing of FIR and the consequential proceedings. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.528 – Quashing – Parties were in a live-in relationship for – Second respondent filed FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 323, 504, 506, IPC alleging that he established physical relationship with her many times with a promise to marry however, later refused to marry – High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for quashing