Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in relying upon P. Mohan Raj case which held that the immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14, IBC can only be obtained by a Corporate Debtor and not by a natural person such as the present appellant, while filed by the appellant for quashing of proceedings initiated u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.14,
Issue for Consideration Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.256 – Appellant lodged a complaint alleging issued process – Respondent arrayed as accused therein filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.PC (CRR No. 2327 of 2018) and sought quashing of summons – The High Court stayed proceedings – Owing to outbreak of COVID, there was national lockdown – Despite the aforesaid stay,
Issue for Consideration Appellant-DDA executed an agreement to lease in respect of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions, which executed a registered sale deed cum Assignment in favour of second respondent. The second respondent went into liquidation, and the plot was sold to first in liquidation proceedings. The auction sale was confirmed by a Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, hence, the present appeal by DDA. Headnotes† Auction – Agreement to lease executed by Appellant in respect of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions –
Issue for Consideration Allegation of disparity in the counting of votes in the election for position of ‘Gram Pradhan’. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was justified in ordering a recount of the votes cast. Headnotes† U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Election for discontent was the inconsistency between the Presiding Officer’s statement to him that in polling booths 43, 44 and 45 a total of 1194 votes were cast, and the final tally given under ‘Form 46’ which showed a total of 1213 votes cast in the said booths –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the appellant no.1 guilty of offence punishable u/s. 304 IPC and appellant no. 2 for offences punishable u/ss. 323 and 451 IPC and sentencing accordingly, setting aside the order of acquittal – ss.304, 323 and 451 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Asphyxia due to head injury – Deceased had a quarrel with his own brother-co- accused – Co-accused called for his two friends-appellants and appellant no.1 hit a blow with sickle on the forehead
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC; (ii) Whether the order dated 21.02.2024 passed effect to the order passed by the High Court directing it to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC would relate back and replace its earlier order dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the s.319 application; (iii) Whether the Trial Court could have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of the CrPC
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in exercise of powers u/s.406 CrPC on the ground of lack of the court in which the complaint is filed; and whether the expression “that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place” in s.406 CrPC embraces in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence u/s.138
Issue for Consideration In the instant Writ petition, purportedly filed in Public Interest, the Petitioner sought a direction to the private hospitals not to compel the patients to buy the medicines, etc. from the pharmacies recommended by them. The issues were (i) whether the affairs of nursing homes, medical institutes, etc. with reference to the fixation of prices of drugs, equipment, or other accessories sold from the pharmacies run by them and/or with whom they have some commercial agreement, can be regulated through administrative or legislative measures? (ii) If so,
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an application for recalling an order passed on a concession made by the Appellant’s counsel? Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly interpreted the recruitment rules while directing the Respondents as ‘Initial Constituents’? Headnotes† Concession made by a party in Court – Recall application against order passed based on such concession rightly rejected – Recall permissible in case of fraud or deception – Impugned judgment upheld –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the petitions sought for the proceedings initiated against the Appellant(s) under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Correctness: Held: The dispute stems from an Inter-Corporate Deposit (“ICD”) agreement executed between the accused company and the Respondent
Issue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of minor – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant was convicted, death sentence awarded – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the liability of the appellant to be prosecuted for committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false promise of marriage; and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition seeking the quashing of the criminal chargesheet u/ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminal proceeding against the appellant for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant for over a period of
Issue for Consideration Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service; Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution; 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation; Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available,
Issue for Consideration Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated; whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal cover, a copy of the document is admissible. Headnotes† Evidence law – Handwriting expert testimony – Murari Lal v. State of M.P. followed – No rule of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But approach should be one of caution – Appellant convicted under Penal Code 1860, under Sections
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court justified in denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and s.61(2) of the BNS 2023. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, s.61(2) – Illegal gratification – Anticipatory bail – Denial – Petitioner-Audit Inspector with the Government demanded illegal gratification in connection with conducting of audit during the tenure of complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the reclassification of Leading Fireman/Tandel under the Recruitment Rules, 2014, as Class III, validly overrides the earlier classification under Appendix A of the MSR 1954, and consequently fixes the retirement age at 58 rather Regulations, 1954 – reg.66 – Pune Municipal Corporation (Recruitment & Classification of Services) Rules, 2014 – Retirement age – Retirement age of leading fireman/ tandel fixed at 60 years under MSR, 1954 – Retirement age reduced from 60 to 58 years by
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the High Court terminating two women Judicial Officers from service during probation period; and whether the cessation of services of two Judicial Officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, Judiciary – Subordinate judiciary – Judicial officers – Termination from service during probation – Six women Judicial Officers terminated on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of High Court on the ground of low disposal rate of cases and
2101 : 2025 INSC 295 Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012) 28 February 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the alleged crime by producing credible and legally information that victim was lying at the place of occurrence in an injured condition – Incident was witnessed by brother-in-law of the victim and another – Allegations that due to previous enmity, the seven accused persons formed unlawful assembly whereafter they assaulted the
Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below warrant any interference in so far as the award of compensation is concerned. Whether appellant no.2, who was minor at the time of incident, was actually involved in the accident. Headnotes† – Victim-deceased went to meet one of his acquaintances, offending vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the victim and he was dragged to some distance – Victim died on spot – Allegation that appellant no.2/minor was driving the offending vehicle –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the borrower of a project loan, falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2 (1)(d)(ii) – Borrower of project loan, if falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ – Maintainability of the consumer complaint – Respondent-advertising and branding company defaulted on a project loan availed from the appellant-Bank for engaging in the post