Issue for Consideration Whether a Muslim Member of the Bar Council of the State or the Union territory (Bar Council), duly elected as a Member of the Waqf Board (Board) constituted u/s.14 of the Wakf Act, 1995, can continue to hold the said position, even after the expiry of his tenure in the – Explanation II to s.14(1)(b) – Appellant was elected as a Member of the Bar Council – Thereafter, he was appointed as one of the members of the 7th Waqf Board Committee, since earlier member-respondent no.3 had ceased to be the member of the Bar Council of Manipur –
Issue for Consideration The main dispute in the lis is, whether the suit property was ancestral or self-acquired property of defendant no.1. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.96, 100, 103 – Defendant no.1 and his two brothers CT and CE divided the joint family – Subsequently, defendant no.1 purchased the suit property from his brother CT by way of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1989 – Thereafter, defendant no.1 sold the suit property to defendant no.2 by way of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1993 – Plaintiffs (sons and
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the appellant as one of the defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Headnotes† Civil Procedure – ‘Proper party’ vis-à-vis ‘necessary party’ – Subsequent purchaser – Suit for specific performance – Appellant sought impleadment as defendant in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to
SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 11442/2023
Bench
2 judges
Issue for Consideration i) Whether after the dismissal of the petition for restoration of suit u/Or. IX R.4 of the CPC a fresh suit is maintainable; ii) Whether after dismissal of suit in default u/R.2 and R.3 of Or. IX of the CPC, a fresh suit is barred by the principle of Procedure, 1908 – Or.IX, R.4 – Whether after the dismissal of the petition for restoration of suit u/Or. IX R.4 of the CPC a fresh suit is maintainable: Held: From bare reading of the two provisions i.e. R.4 and R.9 of Or. IX of the CPC, it is manifestly clear that u/R. 4 of Or. IX
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified to rely on auction sale of the Golden Mile project for assessing just and fair market value of the acquired land; whether landowners are entitled to further enhancement; what other evidence on record ought to be relied on to acquired land; what would be the just and fair market value of the acquired land; and whether the High Court correctly granted statutory benefits like solatium and interest on the enhanced amount in accordance with provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Headnotes† Land Acquisition
Issue for Consideration Whether a fresh suit can be filed to challenge a compromise decree. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit seeking partition claiming that the suit property is not ancestral property – Held, the suit property purchased by funds in the name of the father of the appellant is joint family property – The appellants contended that since the suit property is not an ancestral property, it cannot be partitioned amongst their father, grandfather and father’s brothers – The Appellants further
Issue for Consideration In petition u/s.34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Single Judge had set aside the Arbitral Award. Division Bench in appeal thereagainst u/s.37, Arbitration Act by way of the impugned judgment, inter alia upheld the dismissal of L&T’s counter-claim findings of the Arbitral Tribunal that the Supplementary Agreement was a non-starter as it was vitiated by economic duress; that the Development Agreement was not novated by the Supplementary Agreement; that L&T committed fundamental breach of the Development Agreement. The operative part of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – Powers of the Appellate Court to enhance sentence in appeal appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act and s.376 IPC for committing penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine by the Special Court – Appeal against conviction by the appellant – High
Issue for Consideration Whether it is a fit case to use the power under Article 142 to do complete justice. Headnotes† Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Whether the accused has undergone the imprisonment more than the period which he was originally subjected by the Trial Court: Held: of the High Court and consequently, of the Special Court to be erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside – In these circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside – Consequently, the order of the Special Court (POCSO) convicting and sentencing the appellant herein to
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident, resulting in the death of the pedestrian. Headnotes† Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Benefit under – Death by rash by the appellant resulting in the death of the pedestrian – Trial court convicted the appellant u/ss.279 and 304A with six months imprisonment and fine – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant – Interference with: Held: Not called for –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the order of the competent authority issuing certificate of deemed conveyance in respect of a plot to first respondent. Headnotes† Maharashtra Ownership Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 – s.11 – Promoter to convey title, and execute documents, according to agreement – Scope of power of competent authority u/s.11 – Interference with the order granting deemed conveyance – Deed of
Issue for Consideration Whether upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished; whether the arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 was capable of being executed. Headnotes† Code 1908 – s.47 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.31 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Respondent filed claim petitions against the appellant before the Facilitation
1398 : 2025 INSC 521 Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5095 of 2025) 21 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta and Manmohan* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The question involved is the interpretation of proviso to Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and being acquired. Headnotes† Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Relevant date for determining the market value for the land sought be acquired – Proviso to Section 26(1) – Legislative scheme and
Issue for Consideration Whether service of a Section 21 notice and joinder in a Section 11 application are prerequisites to implead a person/entity as a party to the arbitral proceedings; What is the source of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal over a person/entity who is sought as a party to the arbitral proceedings; As a corollary, what is the relevant inquiry that the arbitral tribunal must undertake when determining its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –
Issue for Consideration Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon. Headnotes† Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate- on-Record – Misconduct – opinions expressed by the Bench: Held: [Per Court] In view of the divergent opinions expressed by the Bench on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Issue for Consideration Filicide or suicide is the vexing question in the instant case where a father was tried and convicted u/s.302 of the Penal Code, 1860 r/w. s.25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 27 – – Appellant accused for murdering of his son – Trial Court convicted accused – Conviction confirmed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, the accused admitted that he owned the gun, but his explanation was that it was hidden by his children,
Issue for Consideration Whether the complaint filed by the respondent makes out a case for offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, IPC against the appellants. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.499 Exception 9, 500 r/w 34 – Defamation – When not – privilege – Scope of Exception 9 to s.499 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) – Appellants-home buyers, not satisfied with the services provided by the respondent-developer, protested against the developer by erecting a banner visible to public at
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.85(i)(b), Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and the sentence awarded is justified. Headnotes† Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – ss.85, 2(17) – Punishment for failure to “Principal employer” – Though deductions towards Employees’ State Insurance contribution were made from the wages of the respondent no.2-Company’s employees but they were not deposited with Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether an offence u/s.8(c) of the NDPS Act could be said to have been made out when an accused “deals with” psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not figuring in Schedule I of the Rules thereunder; whether the case must operate with prospective effect; and that once, charge has been framed by a competent court u/s.228 CrPC, can an accused thereafter seek for discharge/deletion of a particular offence from the charge u/s.216 CrPC. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.195A, 294, 506 – Allegation using derogatory language and extended death threats to appellant – FIR was registered – The High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 – Appellant contended that the respondent no.2 is a known gangster and habitual offender, therefore he shouldn’t be entitled