Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court upholding the arbitral award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34 and 37 – Application for setting aside arbitral awards – regarding delay in completion of the construction contract – Respondent-contracting authority deducted liquidated damages from the contractual dues of the appellant-contractor, along with other deduction and paid balance amount to appellant – Initiation of arbitral proceedings by
Issue for Consideration During the proceedings before the High Court, the Court accepted a better price for the creditor. The offer of the GRT Hotels was accepted by Edelweiss ARCL and it was agreed that the amount deposited of GBJ Hotels would be returned. Aggrieved, GBJ Hotels filed on the ground that sanctity of the auction under the SARFAESI Act has been breached in the process. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Debt Recovery – Auction – Respondents no.1 and 2
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while upholding the conviction and sentence Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 149, 217, 218 – Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(2)(i), 4 – Murder of a young couple in the name of honour killing where the girl belonged to the Vanniyar community and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, enhancing the compensation to Rs.45,14,986/- and directing deduction of half of the compensation under the Rules of 2006, i.e. Rs.21,67,704/- out of the total compensation. Headnotes† – Haryana Compensation Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Compensation – Deduction in respect to the financial assistance under 2006 Rules, if to be deducted from the total compensation – Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained
Issue for Consideration Whether the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making conscious and informed decision or was suffering from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind; Whether a benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused as regards proof of intention – ss.84, 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.105, 165 – Appellant killed her minor daughters – Appellant denied her guilt in a statement recorded u/s.313 of CrPC and claimed that she had
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a duty demand based on reclassification of the products Benzene and Toluene from chapter 29 to chapter 27 is sustainable when such re-classification is based on test reports of which only a gist was provided to the appellant by the CESTAT was justified in treating the assessments provisional for the two products Benzene and Toluene for the months of January and February, 1993 in the absence of any order passed under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without executing any B-13 bond. Headnotes† Central
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court wherein the appellant’s conviction u/ss.304B and 498A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was converted into that u/s.306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Abetment of suicide – Dowry death – Death of the victim in her matrimonial home – FIR by complainant- father of the victim alleging that the appellant-mother-in-law of the victim used to mentally and physically torture her for getting less
Issue for Consideration The issue pertains to the nature and scope of administrative actions initiated in pursuance of the Master Directions on Frauds issued by RBI vis-à-vis criminal proceedings initiated, against the respondents. Headnotes† Administrative actions vis-à-vis and scope – RBI issued Master Directions on Frauds providing framework for early detection and reporting of fraud and consequently taking timely action – In view thereof, the appellant-Banks initiated administrative action against the respondents by declaring companies’ bank
Issue for Consideration Redressal of grievances of the allottees/plot holders. Headnotes† Housing – Residential colony – Builder purchased approx.235 acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana for establishing a In view of the bilateral agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, the Builder was required to allot plots in the various categories – Allottees made deposits; however, the Builder/Colonizer did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement – In 1996,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court confirming the order of the appellate authority which had reversed the order passed by the prescribed authority granting eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.21(1)a, 21(7) – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 – r.16(2) – Proceedings for release of building under
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the time-barred application of the employee before the tribunal, filed after rejection of a belated representation in service dispute. Headnotes† Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – ss.20, 21 – Period of granted second benefit of financial upgradation envisaged under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme-MACP in 2010 and third benefit in 2015 – Representation by the respondent before the appellant in 2016, seeking grant of the benefit of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-alleged contemnor is guilty of civil contempt for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022. Headnotes† Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – When – Agreement entered between the Petitioner-Association and Respondent permitted the latter to occupy and use the Property of the Petitioner for 10 years on payment of licence fees – Persistent defaults in the payment of licence fees by the Respondent – Litigation between
Issue for Consideration The conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is questioned. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – Appellant ii) investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police (PW-4), although in terms of the statutory mandate contained in s.17 of the PC Act, no officer lower in rank than a Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate the crime; iii) the demand was not proved and the conviction is
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the sale deeds were void documents; whether the Will stood admitted in the previous suits and was no longer required to be proved; whether the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit without the of declaration/cancellation. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts.58, 59 and 65 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.54, 41 – Suit for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession – Limitation period – Will allegedly executed by the common
Issue for Consideration Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there was none to present the case of the department, no witness was examined in support of the charges and no document was formally proved, any order of be made; whether the disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked into documents which were not provided to the respondent and had arrived at findings of guilt only on the basis of the charge- sheet, the reply
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a litigant who was already a party to the suit, yet contests the fact or legality of a compromise embodied in a decree, is restricted to an application before the trial court under the proviso to Ord. XXIII r.3 CPC or appeal u/s.96 CPC notwithstanding s.96(3) CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.96, Ord.XXIII r.3, Ord.XLIII r.1A(2), r.1(m) – Compromise of suit – Appeals from original decrees – Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against decree –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his title based on a valid Gift Deed should fail as the plaintiff omitted to pray for the consequential relief of cancellation of the sale deed or a is not binding on him. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.31 and 34 – The Title Suit, bearing No. 88/1997 was filed by the plaintiff, seeking declaration, confirmation of possession and mandatory injunction over the suit land – The T.S. No. 88/1997 came to be
Issue for Consideration The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017. Whether the Additional Judicial cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance; whether the FIR (u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in quashing FIRs registered under the POCSO Act against the respondent no.1. Headnotes† Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.7, 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sexual assault – Multiple allegations of against the respondent no.1, a computer teacher – One of the FIRs was settled by respondent no.1 – High Court quashed the remaining FIRs – Challenge to: Held: High Court ought not to have ignored the fact that respondent No.1 was a teacher and the victims were his students
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-A1 u/ss.363, 366, 376 and 201 r/w s.34, IPC and accused-A2 u/s.201 r/w s.34 and acquitting them. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 366, 376, 201 r/w s.34 conviction and sentence of accused-A1 u/ss.363, 366, 376 and 201 r/w s.34, IPC and accused-A2 u/s.201 r/w s.34 and acquitted them – Correctness: Held: Acquittal not interfered with – FIR was lodged regarding the abduction of the Prosecutrix, there is no allegation of rape in the FIR