Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the decision in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, upholding the cut-off date of 02.12.2004, is per incuriam; whether the aforesaid decision is binding on the petitioners; whether a writ petition under Article 32 of to directly or collaterally challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 32 – Judgment/Order of Supreme Court passed u/Article 136, not amenable to judicial review u/Article 32 – In a matter, High Court allowed the writ
Issue for Consideration Whether High Court correctly disposed of the prayer for quashing of the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case u/ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.4 – K is the husband of respondent no.2 and appellants herein are relatives of K – Matrimonial dispute arose between K and respondent no.2 – K filed for divorce – Ex- parte divorce decree was
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court and the trial court rejecting the application filed by the appellant u/Ord.VII r.11(a) and (d) CPC for the rejection of plaint. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Rejection of plaint – Appellant Institute in possession of suit property since 1905 – Respondents filed suit seeking permanent injunction restraining appellant from creating any third-party interest over the property based on an alleged agreement to sell executed by respondents with a
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission providing reservation for “ex-servicemen” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service. Headnotes† Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, Reservation in recruitment – Recruitment by the Punjab Public Service Commission – Reservation for “ex-servicemen”, if includes personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service-IMNS – Advertisement for recruitment to posts under the Punjab Civil Service
Issue for Consideration The High Court in the impugned judgment took the view that Order 41 Rule 31 is mandatory and the failure on the part of the First Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as per Order 41 Rule 31 vitiated the judgment and made it wholly void. Whether itself vitiate the judgment of the Appellate Court; Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court can be interfered with under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC if the Appellant has not shown any points for determination in the Appeal. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 31
1334 : 2025 INSC 512 Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2025) 16 April 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC application filed by the appellants – Eventually, FIR registered by respondent No.2 against the appellants after dismissal of the criminal complaint holding that the matter is of civil nature – Application for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed by the appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to: Held:
Issue for Consideration Sub-rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 provided that where any dealer had generated declaration forms or certificates by misrepresentation of fact or by fraud or in contravention of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST authority or any other authority authorised by the Commissioner after affording such dealer an opportunity of being heard, is empowered to cancel such declaration forms or certificates. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the first appellant-State had no rule-making power to
Issue for Consideration The appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 7489 of 2002 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate for offences u/s.420 of the Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court. Headnotes† s.482 – Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – s.138 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – The appellant’s company filed a complaint u/s.138 of the NI Act against ID Packaging and respondent no.2 in relation to the 07 dishonored cheques – The trial Court convicted
Issue for Consideration Appellants sought quashing of FIR in respect of offences u/ss.498-A and s.114 of IPC u/s.482 of CrPC. By the impugned order dated 01.02.2024, the High Court dismissed the petition. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A and s.114 – Code of Criminal father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the second respondent – On 15.05.2019, the first appellant filed for divorce – On 20.07.2019, the second respondent lodged the impugned FIR – Appellants sought quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings – The High
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether use of Urdu on a signboard of the building of Municipal Council in Maharashtra is violative of any provision of law. Headnotes† Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 – ss.308, 318 – Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 – Use of Urdu on the signboard of the Municipality in Maharashtra – Board displaying the name of the Municipal Council on its building in
Issue for Consideration i) What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in s.15(2) of the Copyright Act, thereby classifying it as a ‘design’ u/s.2(d) of the Designs Act; ii) Whether the High Court erred in setting the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC. Headnotes† Copyright Act, 1957 – s.15(2) – Designs Act, 2000 – s.2(d) – What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking. Headnotes† Bail – Cancellation of – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 311, 370(5) – – High Court granted bail to 13 accused persons allegedly involved in such cases involving interstate trafficking of minor children on a large scale – Challenge to, by the victims of the crime, the kith and kin of the children trafficked: Held: High Court while releasing the accused
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in directing further investigation into the highly belated complaint filed by the complainant-Company after unexplained delay of six years by twisting and manipulating the facts to give a colour of criminal offence to a purely of law – Criminal color imparted to a civil dispute – Further investigation directed – Impermissibility – Complainant-Company filed complaint alleging non-supply of manganese ore against the advance payment of Rs.50 lakhs, FIR registered u/ss.120B, 406 and 420, IPC
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains recall of judgment of this Court on the ground that the respondents in the appeals were not served. Headnotes† Suit – Matter pertaining to suit for declaration – Judgment/orders by this Court – Recall of judgment on respondents in the appeal not served: Held: In view of non-appearance of the parties for not being served, judgment is recalled. [Paras 1-2] List of Keywords Recall of judgment; Non-appearance of parties; Respondents not served. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous
Issue for Consideration Directions sought for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and harassment complaints. Also, sought declaration regarding the constitutionality of s.498A of the Penal Code, 1860 (now s.84 of 2023) Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.84 – Whether the impugned provision i.e. s.498A of IPC warrant judicial interference: Held: No – This is so because it is
Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the Interim Application No. 11269 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby declined to condone the delay of 301 days in filing the main appeal u/s.13(1-A) of the Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – ss.13(1-A), 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XX Rule 1 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Respondent instituted a civil suit against the Petitioner for recovery of a sum of money along with interest on
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court. Headnotes† Code of ss.82, 204, 482 – Anticipatory bail – Avoiding execution of summons or warrants – Appellant-SFIO lodged a complaint before the Special Court against the respondents-accused, alleging serious offences under the Companies Act and IPC – Special court took cognizance of
Issue for Consideration Matter involves the question of reservations of posts in the government services of the State of Punjab; including reservation for women for the post of DSP under the ‘SC Sports’ category. Headnotes† Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Combined Competitive Examination, 2020 – Advertisement dated 11.12.2020 was issued following the 2020 Rules thus, DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ – 2020 Rules amended, roster introduced – Private respondent had stood 1st amongst males,
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to disallowance of the input tax credit claimed by the dealer. Whether the assessing officer correctly held that the dealer is not entitled to input tax credit for the purchase tax paid by him on the sales turnover made in favour of Value Added Tax Act, 2008 – s.7(c) and s.13(7) – The appellant-dealer claimed an input tax credit amounting to Rs. 6,42,260/- – The assessing officer, at the first instance, allowed input tax to the extent of Rs. 6,42,260/- – Subsequently, the assessing officer vide order
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite the existence of concurrent findings, when section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowered the High Court to decide Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.3 and Art.59 – Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence let-in by the parties, categorically held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation