Issue for Consideration Whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible in the event of termination of service on misconduct, which can be categorised as an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude; without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal Headnotes† Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4(6)(b)(ii) – Interpretation: Held: Under the Act, for forfeiture of gratuity, conviction in a criminal proceeding is not necessitated, if the misconduct alleged and proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude
Issue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR registered against the Respondent in the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whether a composite order can be passed under Section Act, 1988 directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation in the case. Headnotes† Requirement of preliminary inquiry before directing registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Held: Conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 allegedly executed between the appellant and the mother of respondent no.1 in respect of the suit property. Headnotes† Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Explanation Appellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 – Respondents filed an application u/s.34 of the 1958 Act for impounding the document – Trial Court allowed the said application, impounded the sale agreement dated 03.09.2003 and directed the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which it allowed respondent no.1 to withdraw the amount deposited in the court by the appellant and disposed of the writ petition as – s.14 – Raising or removal of wreck impeding navigation within limits of port – Appellant called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.70 lakhs for removal of wreck of a barge belonging to respondent no.3 which capsized while ferrying iron ore from the ship of the appellant to the port
Issue for Consideration Whether earlier decrees obtained by the appellant for permanent injunction foreclosed re-litigation of the dispute under the doctrine of res judicata and whether declaratory relief could be granted in favour of the State through a suit instituted by third parties, when the litigation. Headnotes† C.P.C, 1908 – Parties to the suit decided on merit and attained finality are bound by the terms of the decree – In representative suit, third party having complete knowledge of the previous litigation has no locus standi to file another suit on same
Issue for Consideration Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail. Headnotes† Bail – Entitlement to – Delay in trial – Constitution of India – Prevention Act, 1967 – Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – FIR against appellant under the aforesaid Acts – Trial in progress – Out of 100 witnesses, 42 witnesses examined – Bail denied by High Court – Challenge to:
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily appointed Assistant Executive Engineers-AEEs between 1990-1992 including the appellants should be taken into account for considering their seniority over and above the 1997 batch of through APPSC-private respondents. Headnotes† Service Law – Seniority – Counting of the period of officiating service – Appellants regularly appointed in 1990 as Work Inspectors in the State Corporation – For the project-based exigency, in 1992, the appellants
Issue for Consideration Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-in- law, in June 2010. His motive stemmed from disapproval of his sister-in-law’s relationship, which his wife and On 16.06.2010, he allegedly killed his sister-in-law and mother-in- law at his house in Tumkur and disposed of their bodies in a sump tank. The next day, he took his children to a water tank in Mangalore and drowned them. He later sent messages to his wife, suggesting she end her life. His
Issue for Consideration Whether HUDCO was in breach of its reciprocal contractual obligations under the allotment letter dated 31.10.1994, and whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the forfeited amount in terms of cl.5(vi) of the allotment letter; entitled to discretionary relief of interest on refund of forfeited amount u/s.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Headnotes† Appellant, highest bidder, allotted land by R1/HUDCO for construction of hotel – Appellant paid first instalment in terms of allotment letter –
Issue for Consideration Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under Section 48 of Act, 2009 and in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.”; whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, was justified in directing the parties Non-compliance of the order of the High Court – Aggravated contempt – HIDCO agreed to convey land to the appellants on freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- – Appellant paid the entire amount – However, HIDCO decided that allotment would not be on freehold basis but on
Issue for Consideration Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under u/s.25 of the Act; whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a to seek maintenance pendente lite under u/s.24 of the Act. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Whether spouse of marriage declared as void can claim permanent alimony u/s.25 and whether maintenance pendente lite can be granted u/s.24 in a s.11 HMA
Issue for Consideration Whether the amendment to s.8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, applies retrospectively to take away tax exemption benefits granted under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 (PSI 1993). Whether the in taking away a right accured to the assessee-respondent on mere prospective amendment of s.8(5) without revoking the Entitlement Certificate dated 24.03.1998 without notice or opportunity of hearing. Headnotes† Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – s.8(5) – Amendment of s.8(5)
Issue for Consideration Father of the respondent passed away while in service of the appellant. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, formulated by the appellant and contained in Circular No. 154/93 dated 8th May, 1993, was in force when such death occurred. The issues inter alia were: High Court was unjustified in not allowing the intra-court appeal of the appellant and in upholding the judgment of the Single Judge while directing the compassionate appointment of respondent at a point of time when he was past 44 (forty-four) years of age; 2) Whether there was a lapse of time
Issue for Consideration The issues before the Hon’ble Court were as to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution and could the as having abated; and as to what is the proper sequence in which the said applications are to be filed. Headnotes† Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Application for setting aside abatement and application for condonation of delay in filing the former application –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the judgments of the High Court setting aside various amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994; and whether sole distributor/purchaser of the lottery tickets is liable to pay service tax on the online lottery tickets. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – ss.65(19), 65(105)(zzzzn), 65B(1), 65B(34), 65B(44), 65B(51), 66B, 66D(i), 66F, 65B(31A), 67 – Various amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, time to time – Sale of lottery tickets – Levy of service tax –
Issue for Consideration If a wife owes a stock market debt, can the registered stock broker invoke arbitration against her husband under BSE Bye-Laws, 1957 and hold him jointly and severally liable for debt based on an oral agreement. Headnotes† Arbitration – the registered stock broker transferred former’s credit balance to wife’s account to offset her losses – 2001 market crash – Debit balance in wife’s account increased exponentially – Stock broker invoked arbitration under BSE bye-laws to recover the
Issue for Consideration Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of respondent no.2 in the present case was totally activated by mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the appellants. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Appellants had filed two civil suits, i.e. one for permanent injunction to prohibit respondent no.2 and the other for declaration of ownership of the suit property – Respondent no.2 filed an FIR u/ss.448 and 506 IPC alleging that appellants had threatened respondent no.2 to withdraw
Issue for Consideration The Appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and 376(2)(G) IPC for alleged murder of a four-year-old girl. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death, which was later confirmed by the High Court. The High Court confirmed the sentence dead body was recovered following the accused’s disclosure and was identified by PW1, the victim’s father. The last-seen evidence was firmly established through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, and PW7, confirming that the victim was last seen with the accused. The
Issue for Consideration Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, IPC. Whether the identity of the appellants as accused was established. Appellants, if entitled Identity as accused not established – Trial court convicted the appellants u/ss.302, 323 r/w s.34, IPC – High Court altered the conviction to s.304 Part II, IPC – Interference with: Held: Identity of the present appellants as accused was not established before the Court by any