Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the date from which the appellants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division); also whether, the appellants are entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers appointed on 10.07.2012. Headnotes† Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Seniority – Appellants selected in the selection process of 2003 were appointed in terms of the order of High Court dtd.02.05.2012 wherein it was also stated that their seniority was to be reckoned from the date of appointment – Delay in
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing appellant’s petition u/s.482 CrPC seeking quashing of chargesheet against him. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of proceedings to the bank, issuance of auction notice for mortgaged immovable property – Respondent no.2, de-facto complainant, purchased the property in the public auction – Subsequently, complainant came to know that the property was already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition of the appellants u/s.482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 proceedings – Matrimonial disputes between the parties – In view of the compromise between them, the husband withdrew the case of restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant-wife withdrew her complaint before the police – Thereafter, the wife left for USA
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to initiation of inquiry against the appellant (Inspector of Police at the time of riots) on account of dereliction of duty in controlling the 1984 riots. Whether, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have given liberty to the Disciplinary whether it is a fit case to put a quietus to the proceeding. Headnotes† Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – The charges against the appellant are in respect of failure to control the 1984 riots in the area under the command of the appellant – The appellant was
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing for investigation by the CBI. Headnotes† Investigation – CBI investigation – Direction by High Court – Deceased was a close confidant of one DKA, a Member properties – After the death of DKA, tiff between the deceased and the children of DKA (one of the appellants) as regards those properties – Deceased died under mysterious circumstances – FIR registered inter alia against appellants for murder of the deceased – SIT
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of High Court order rejecting the writ petition of the appellants against the First Appellate Court’s common order allowing I.A. u/Ord.11 r.14 CPC and allowing I.A. seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the first Procedure, 1908 – Ord.11 r.14 and Ord.7 r.11 – Production of documents – Rejection of plaint – Matter as regards subject land – Purchasers-appellants and owners- respondents involved in multiple litigations arising from sale deed in respect of subject land, filing
Issue for Consideration Whether due process was followed in dismissing the appellant from service and whether his dismissal from service is justified, on facts and in the circumstances; whether, in light of the facts, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances of the case, the charges in the identical to those in the departmental proceedings, such that an acquittal in the criminal case would render the findings in the disciplinary proceedings vulnerable. Headnotes† Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – R.55 – Bihar and Orissa
Issue for Consideration When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, whether another Judge could have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, the High Court in a contempt petition held the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was rightly denied the promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary. Headnotes† IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 – Promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary – Denial of – General Guidelines for Promotion etc. and functioning of Screening ACRs/PARs of an officer were required for promotion – Though 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not written, he was considered as a special case based on available ACRs – Screening Committee found the appellant ineligible for promotion since 90% of his ACRs were not available
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the tribunal dismissing the review application and holding that disability of the appellant was less than 20%. Headnotes† Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss.14, 30 – Pension Regulations for the Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – rr.5 – Disability pension – Appellant, enrolled in the army, as invalided out from service on account of low medical category for the disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 assessed at less than 20% on the recommendations of
Issue for Consideration Whether an employee of the State who had availed the benefit of leave encashment maximum of 300 days once on attaining the age of superannuation under Rule 36 of Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982, can further be entitled for leave encashment again on relieving of re-employment. Headnotes† Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 – rr.98, 102 – Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982 – rr.6, 17, 31, 32, 36 – Grant of benefit of leave encashment second time for the period of re-employment of respondent after attaining
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Correction Application filed under Section 362, CrPC by the accused persons and modifying its earlier judgment by converting the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part Code, 1973 – s.362 – Court not to alter judgment – Accused were convicted by the trial court u/ss.302, 323 r/w 34, 452, 504, 506 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life – High Court dismissing the criminal appeals thereagainst affirmed the conviction – However,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Chairman of Managing Committee which runs the school can be punished for offence of cruelty to the child u/s.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, punished for cruelty to a child – Four year old sexually assaulted by a classmate in the school – Charge sheet filed against four persons, including appellant-Chairman of Managing Committee – Special judge issued summons to appellant, attributing negligence to the appellant for
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation either u/s.360(1) of CrPC or u/s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; whether the High Court was justified in not extending the benefit of probation to the appellants. Headnotes† Probation – sub-section (1) of s.4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Appellants were jointly tried for commission of offences u/ss.304-B and 498-A of IPC – The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants of charge u/s.304-B but convicted them u/s.498-A of IPC –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose in this suo motu writ petition with respect to the large amounts of unclaimed compensation lying deposited with MACTs and Labour Courts under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1988 – ss.166, 176 – Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Large amounts of unclaimed compensation lying with MACTs and Labour Courts – Email received from a retired District Judge – Suo motu action by Supreme Court – Directions issued: Held: Rules
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that sanction under Section 197, Cr.PC not having been obtained, the respondent should be discharged for the offences registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC against him. Headnotes† Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 1860 – s.21 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Sanction for prosecution – Respondent initially appointed by Government of Punjab, was sent on deputation in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh – Deputation period was extended by Governor of Punjab
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation payable to the to Rs.16,97,370/- maintaining the interest awarded at the rate of 9% p.a. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.166 r/w. s.140 – On 12.08.2008, a Bus allegedly driven in a negligent manner hit a motorcycle, which was driven by victim along with his wife – Victim
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Murder of women and her three daughters by setting them on fire – FIR by complainant-brother of deceased lady against accused- husband and co-accused, that they poured kerosene on the wife and three daughters and set them on fire – Co-accused later succumbed to burn
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to sustainability of the order passed by the High Court allowing writ petition u/Art.227 of the Constitution and allowing multiple interlocutory applications-application for condonation of delay in filing recall application, application for being allowed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.9 r.13 – Appellant filed civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed – Respondents filed written statement, and thereafter went on taking adjournment one after the
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and ought to be dissolved on that ground in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Whether on facts there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and it ought to be dissolved on that ground in exercise of jurisdiction u/Article 142: Held: Yes – Parties have lived separately for over a decade and there is a complete absence of marital ties – Multiple attempts at