Issue for Consideration Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences, with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between – Art.142 – Cross-FIRs related to same incident and for the same offences, filed by two lawyers against each other – Both lawyers practising before the same Courts – Incident arose due to past animosity – Unconditional apology and undertakings tendered by both
1277 : 2025 INSC 408 Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3998 of 2024) 27 March 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration The issue relates to the applicability of the “theory of deduction” for in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 23, 27, 28, 105(3) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.11, 15, 23-25 – Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2018 – Theory
Issue for Consideration Whether the complaint filed by the respondent-Credit Co-operative Society under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Abuse – Suppression of material facts and documents – When – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.200 – Security cheque issued in lieu of the loan allegedly taken by the appellant from the respondent-Credit Co-operative
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other of offence – Murder of the appellant-informant’s brother, political rivalry alleged – FIR filed – SIT set up, no evidence found against the private respondents – Trial Court issued summons to the private respondents – High Court set aside the summons
Issue for Consideration The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) – Allegation that appellant was hoarding assets disproportionate to his income – FIR registered u/ss.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that whether the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer interest or at the employees own request. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Transfer or reappointment of government employee from one post to another – Impact on seniority in the new post – Seniority, if contingent upon the transfer made in public interest or
Issue for Consideration Whether the Plaint Schedule stood transferred in favour of one late PC through legal, valid and binding documents; Whether appellant is justified in contending that moulding of relief by the impugned judgment is illegal. Headnotes† of Property – Auction sale of property – Will – Late SC offered the properties, including the Plaint Schedule, as surety for the realisation of the amounts decreed in favour of the late PC – Surety offered were put on auction – On 04.05.1962, Plaint Schedule was
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter; whether contributory negligence could have been concluded on the ground of the scooter driver having only a Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim – Contributory negligence – When not – Appellant, riding pillion on a scooter met with an accident with a trailer leading to amputation of his legs – Tribunal and the High Court found contributory negligence on the part of the scooter
Issue for Consideration The three parties herein are the borrower/flat owners, the builder and the Bank – the lender. There were defaults at the end of each parties. However, same has been settled. Only three small issues have been flagged by the appellants: i) The Bank be directed to remove the loan account statement as it may affect future loan facilities being availed by the appellant; ii) The apartments purchased by the appellants are ready and some minor work remains which the builder may complete forthwith and hand over possession to the appellants; (iii) Another issue raised
Issue for Consideration The issues related to removal of encroachments and restoration of forest areas in the Agasthyamalai landscape, which includes within its ambit the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Western Ghats – Restoration of pristine forest areas and protection of tiger habitats/wildlife reserves/sanctuaries falling under the Agasthyamalai landscape – Directions given by Supreme Court – Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Held:
Issue for Consideration (i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 CrPC. (ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC by the Police obviates the requirement of registration of (iii) What is the settled law with regard to registration of FIR as laid down by this Hon’ble Court. (iv) Whether the High Court was right in passing the impugned order rejecting the prayer for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Police to register FIR and investigate on it.
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’. Headnotes† Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Assigned government land - Resumption of land – Father of the appellant acquired the subject land by way of a registered sale deed in 1970 and after his death, appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject
Issue for Consideration Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 is justified; whether he is entitled to remission of sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Delay in recording statements of witnesses – When not fatal – was convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant inter alia contended that he was implicated in a false case as there was delay in recording of the statements of the witnesses: Held: Delay in recording witness statements is not always fatal to the prosecution’s
Issue for Consideration Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Complainant-victim alleged that she was coerced into sexual intercourse by under false promise of marriage – High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant u/s.482 holding that he had obtained forced consent from the victim by promising to marry her – Interference with: Held: Parties were closely related and were admittedly in a relationship
Issue for Consideration The question to be decided herein is twin fold, whether the document of the year 1985 is a gift or Settlement or Will and whether the requirements under law or conditions in the deed have been satisfied to vest a legal right. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Art. 33 – Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 – Art.31 – Registration Act, 1909 – s.17 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.2(b) – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Part VI – ss.2(h), 59, 61, 62, 63, 70, 89 – Respondent No.1 was
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of delay – When justified – Dispute over title of a land between the appellant and the Respondent-State wherein land in its possession – Delay of 1537 days on part of the State in filing the Second Appeal was condoned by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Impugned order upheld – Though delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, however, if in a particular case, the merits have to
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the appellants; whether in the facts of the case, mere presence of the appellants at the scene of crime, without anything further, was sufficient to of the unlawful assembly. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, 332 – Large rioting crowd comprising of over a thousand people – Six accused-appellants arrested from the crime scene (originally 7 persons were arrested, one died during the trial)
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction u/s.302 IPC could be converted into s.304 Part I or Part II IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I, 300 exception IV, 302 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Alteration of conviction to a witnesses – Reliability – Quarrel on account of previous enimity between the accused persons and the deceased who were brothers – Upon confrontation, the co-accused and his son-appellant became aggressive, and the co-accused armed with axe and the appellant armed with stick
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of judgment and order of the Special Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Headnotes† Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 15, 19 – TADA Rules – r.15 – Recording of confessional statement – Non-compliance – Effect – Complaint alleging that Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University and his Personal Secretary were kidnapped by armed terrorists from their official car and subsequently,
Issue for Consideration Whether the term ‘degree’ as mentioned in the rules and the recruitment notification for the appointment as Food Safety Officer (FSO) issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission can be restricted to “Bachelor’s degree” or whether the the “Master’s degree” as well. Headnotes† Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – ss.37, 91 – Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 – 2022 Amendment – University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – s.22(3) – Disqualification for possessing higher