Issue for Consideration i) Whether the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) has the jurisdiction to regulate inter-state open access under the Electricity Act, 2003; ii) Whether the imposition of penalties for variations in drawal from contracted demand amounts to an right to open access under Section 42 of the Act of 2003; iii) Whether Regulation 26(7) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 is ultra vires for requiring an advance notice of 24 hours a day prior, thereby preventing urgent
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the proceedings initiated against the appellants u/s.138 rw s.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be stayed in view of the interim moratorium u/s.96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 having come into effect upon the appellants filing Code, 2016 – ss.94 and 96 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 141 – Moratorium – Interim moratorium – Complaint u/s.138 NI Act upon failure of the appellant-accused to make payment after cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds
Issue for Consideration Dispute arose as to whether the power exercised by Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing a Land Settlement Order- a quasi-judicial order u/s.57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could be considered of a nature that would warrant him. The questions for consideration were (i) whether the chargesheet issued to appellant by Respondent-State fell within the scope of observations carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case; and (ii) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years)
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Altercation between the appellant-serving in Army and the accused, after which accused armed with a knife along with others armed with lathi and danda, came back – Appellant seriously injured after being stabbed by the accused in the waist and chest, while one of the co-accused had
Issue for Consideration Whether the demolition of the appellants’ residential premises/ buildings by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) purportedly done under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was illegal. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban – ss.27, 43 – Order of demolition of building – Services of notices, etc. – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Residential structures of the appellants demolished purportedly u/s.27 – Whether the demolition was illegal: Held: Yes
Issue for Consideration Whether Resolution Plan-RP approved by Committee of Creditors-CoC and NCLT was in contravention of provisions of any law requiring NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; whether the NCLAT should have entertained the appeals filed by the respondents-63 Moons u/s.61 of the Code and tinkered with the RP approved by the CoC and the NCLT; whether NCLAT was correct in dismissing appeals by FD Holders challenging the distribution
Issue for Consideration Appellant sought release of his land from acquisition. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Appellant is the owner in possession of the land in question notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act for acquisition of the land – The LAC passed an award and mentioned that the possession of the land acquired was already taken and the same vests with the Government – Appellant filed various writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings,
Issue for Consideration The appellant’s writ petition, assailing the correctness of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/Competent Authority, was dismissed by the of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 – ss.5, 11 – The respondent No.2-Society applied for a Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance – By an order dated 22.02.2021, the Competent Authority dismissed the respondent
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the enhanced valuation of shares sold by the appellants to the Respondent No.1-State in 1973 as determined by the High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court. Headnotes† Code of s.34 – Interest – Grant of appropriate rate of interest in a commercial transaction – No agreement between the parties relating to grant of interest for delayed payment – In 1973, the appellants sold their shares in Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1-State at
Issue for Consideration Whether the respondents who have admittedly completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on 01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400- 67000 and AGP of Rs.9000; liable to be re-designated as Associate Professors. Headnotes† Service Law – Movement to a higher pay scale – When not entitled to – All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – Vide notification dated 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was made a mandatory qualification
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS as alleged, were made out against the appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha; whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to quash the FIR lodged 2023 – ss.196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) – Appellant, a Member of Rajya Sabha had put out a video of a mass marriage function on his social media platform, and in the background of the video, the words of the poem in question were uttered – FIR was lodged against the
Issue for Consideration Whether the order by which the respondent-civil servant was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should have been interdicted by the High Court on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand. Art.311 – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State – Authority to issue chargesheet or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the government servant – Respondent-civil service officer, indulged in diverse
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s summoning order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of the assailants to face trial – Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field between no.2 and 3, shot dead the victim – FIR filed by the appellant-victim’s son – Respondent no.2 and 3 named in the FIR but not named in the chargesheet as accused – Chargesheet was filed u/ss.302, 504 and 506 IPC against the other two, while a final report was filed in
Issue for Consideration Whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) determined by the Customs Authorities, which is contested by the appellants. The High Court had concluded that the Customs Authority had been able imported product is HSD by applying the test of preponderance of probability. Whether the High Court was justified, by applying the test of preponderance of probability and concluding that the substance in question is HSD. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – ss.111(d) and (m), 112 (a)
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the appointments of the appellants as Assistant Professors as being incompatible with the rules and regulations. Headnotes† Service Law – High Court canceled the appointment of the appellants as Assistant of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR), Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS) holding that they did not have the prescribed qualification of diploma course in PMR – It was held that they did not make any effort for admission into the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother, a senior citizen from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father. and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – ss.23, 4, 5 – Whether the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother (a senior citizen) from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father, from where he was carrying on the utensil business was necessitated:
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, Quashing of complaint – Abetment of suicide – Cheating – Victim, respondent nos.2 and 3 partners in a firm, and respondent no.4 was the manager – Victim committed suicide by hanging – After about 39 days, the appellant-wife of the deceased registered a complaint that
Issue for Consideration Whether the case of the present Petitioner is specifically covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and 737; After the said judgment was brought to the notice of the respondents/authorities, whether the respondents/authorities could have proceeded with the recovery proceedings. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.2(b) –
Issue for Consideration Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, marginally enhanced by the High Court along with other statutory benefits is fair and reasonable. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Enhancement of – Document proximate to if can be considered as exemplar for determination of compensation: Held: Bona fide transaction of sale, if proximate to the land acquired and the date, in absence of any evidence that acquisition has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting the accused-appellant u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Abusive quarrel between the appellant and the victim – Appellant attacked succumbed to injuries – Relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the courts below convicted the appellant u/s.302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment – Correctness: Held: Evidence of the informant-PW-1 contradictory with that of PW-6 – Perusal of the testimony