Issue for Consideration The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is two-fold. Firstly, the in-part acceptance of his application u/s.311 of the CrPC and consequent non-summoning of witness-K. Secondly, closure of the summoned witness-V. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – The petitioner filed an application u/s.311 of the CrPC/Code for summoning two persons, viz., V and K – The Trial Court partly allowed the application and issued summons to the witness-V and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order passed by family court not awarding any maintenance to the appellant-wife. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Maintenance – Appellant-wife married to respondent no.2-husband according to Islamic customs and had two children – Husband filed divorce suit against the appellant in the ‘Court of Kazi’ which came to be dismissed in terms of the compromise between the parties –
Issue for Consideration Whether ‘equitable mortgages’ are recognized in India under the nomenclature of ‘charge’ in terms of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA); Who holds a valid mortgage over the property—the Appellant (Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Bank of India). Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 58, 100 – Equitable mortgage – Equitable mortgages are recognized in India as a ‘charge’ under Section 100 of the TPA – Charge created by equitable mortgage will be enforceable
Issue for Consideration a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming imposed by the Trial Court? Headnotes† Constitutional of India – Art.21 – Fair Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – To secure a fair trial is not solitary responsibility: Held: Fair and impartial administration of justice is a treasured right protected
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered for offence punishable u/s.18 of the NDPS Act, and when subsequently he was involved in another case of the same nature. Headnotes† Narcotic Substances Act, 1985 – s.18 – Bail – High Court granted bail to the accused in a case registered for offence punishable u/s.18 – Subsequently, accused involved in another case under NDPS Act and also arrested for the same, and trial had already commenced: Held: Having
Issue for Consideration The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A of IPC; By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, Appellant married to victim-deceased on 25.06.1996 – On 02.04.1998, the deceased committed suicide – The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498- A of IPC – By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and
Issue for Consideration The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 506 – Allegation the respondent no. 3/victim – FIR u/s.366 IPC was registered – Whereas, it was the case of the appellant that he and respondent no. 3 had married each other – The respondent no. 3 had recorded a statement u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C, with the JMFC raising allegations of rape against
Issue for Consideration Whether the services of the appellant-workmen (gardeners) were terminated without complying with Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellants, if entitled to reinstatement with back wages as also regularization of their services. – ss.6E, 6N – Non-compliance with: Held: The pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement negates the stand of the Respondent-Employer that the Appellant- Workmen were “contractor’s personnel” – Appellants were pressing for regularization and proper
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards permanent alimony to be given by respondent-husband to appellant-wife, post-divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13 – Divorce – Permanent Alimony – Marriage between the parties dissolved by the family court Decree of divorce affirmed by the High Court – Matter before this Court, wherein it has come to the knowledge that the respondent has re-married, thus the subsisting dispute as regards the maintenance: Held: Husband has already remarried, parties stayed together for only about two months
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing an appeal u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the requirement of clause 49.5 was never waived by the respondent, that clause 49.5 was a valid clause, Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Arbitration award – Scope of interference in an appeal u/s.37 – Dispute between the appellant and the respondent over construction of Road Over Bridges – Case of the appellant that delay in construction
Issue for Consideration Whether the incident in question occurred at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view; whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes† Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) – “any place within public view” – As per the complainant when he was in his office
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether on commencement of recruitment process on the date of advertisement, the private respondents or the appellants possessed the minimum qualification prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules; whether the interim order and the impugned judgment passed by on the concession of the Advocate General of the State, would amount to change of rules of the game after commencement of recruitment process; whether in terms of s.23(2) of RTE Act and para 10 of NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, how far the State Government can change the eligibility
Issue for Consideration Whether selling of Nitrous Oxide I.P. by the appellant no. 1 company to the unlicensed accused No.3 firm which does not possess license under Form 20B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, was in contravention r.65(5)(1)(b) of the Rules, punishable u/s.27(d) of the said Act. Headnotes† Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.3(f), 18(a)(vi), 27(d) – Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – rr.65(5)(1)(b), 70, Form 20B, 25, 26 – Manufacture and sale of drugs – Condition of
Issue for Consideration Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Maintenance – Appellant no.1-wife of an MoU executed between them – Appellant no.1 married the respondent – Marriage declared null and void – Respondent and Appellant no.1 got re-married – However, differences arose between them, Appellant no.1 sought maintenance from the respondent – Awarded by
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to pollution caused by tanneries by discharging untreated or partially treated effluents into the River Palar and surrounding areas; and as regards the correctness of by the High Court dismissing the writ petition against the order of the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) Authority determining a total sum of Rs. 2,91,01,278 as payable to affected individuals/families by the polluters. Headnotes† Environment laws – Pollution
Issue for Consideration Plain reading and interpretation of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Headnotes† Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Interpretation of Order XXII Rule 5 – The instant SLP is filed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the High Bench had refused to extend the period of temporary bail granted to the petitioner – While preferring the present special leave petition, the petitioner also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking exemption from surrendering – The said application was registered by the
Issue for Consideration Non-speaking summoning order issued by Magistrate against the appellants. Petition under Section 482, CrPC filed by the appellants for quashing, dismissed by High Court. Issue as regards the legality of the summoning order and the Non-speaking – Quashing of: Held: Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – However, in the present
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the witness box, whether the contents of such FIR can be and read into the evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 498A, 34 – Abetment of suicide – FIR by the father that his daughter committed suicide as she was constantly harassed by the respondents-husband, in-laws and first wife of the husband – Respondents
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.301, exception 4 to s.300, s.304 Part-I – Murder – Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person homicide not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight – When – On facts, altercation between the parties – Appellant armed with knife and co-accused with hockey stick trespassed into the house of the first informant with the intention to lay an assault
Issue for Consideration Whether providing domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to Postgraduate (PG) Medical Courses within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible; Difference between domicile and residence discussed. Headnotes† Constitution of India, Reservation in PG Medical Course – Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh reserved 64 PG medical seats in State Quota – 32 seats reserved for “residents” of State and 32 seats reserved for those who have done their MBBS from the same Medical College in