Issue for Consideration The role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those with limited means. Headnotes† Advocates – Responsibility of – Rendering assistance to indigent litigant: Held: the bar, must volunteer to assist the litigants who cannot engage the services of a counsel due to lack of means or awareness whenever an opportunity presents itself – Moreover, they should render the best legal assistance to the litigant without any expectation in return for their
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a right in favour of victim; Is Proviso to s.372 of CrPC is retrospective in operation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.401 r/w. s.397 – In the Criminal Revision Application No. 194 of 2006 filed by the original de facto complainant before the High Court against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of compensation granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation of the appellants met with an accident resulting in their death while travelling in a vehicle after the bus belonging to respondent no.3 dashed into the said vehicle – Appellants claimed identical compensation for the parents as both were partners in a Mill – Tribunal granted
Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the High Court acted well within the contours of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in rejecting Ajay Malik’s quashing petition; (2) Whether the High Court fell in error in rejecting the Compounding Application moved by Ajay Malik and supported by Court was legally correct in accepting Ashok Kumar’s Criminal Revision, thereby discharging him from the captioned criminal proceedings; (4) Whether the existing legal framework in India sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the approval of a proposed combination by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) must mandatorily precede the approval of the Resolution Plan, by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), as stipulated under the proviso to Section 31(4) of Code, 2016. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.31(4) proviso – If mandatory or directory – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of ‘HNGIL’, the Corporate Debtor/Target Company with a 60% market share of the glass packaging industry
Issue for Consideration Whether a transferee pendente lite has a right to be impleaded in the suit by seeking leave to appeal and in case he is not impleaded, whether he is bound by the decree passed in the said suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) - Order I, Rule 10, Section 146; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”) – Section 52 discussed. Principles governing grant of leave to appeal in an impleadment application made by a third party/transferee pendente lite summarised: Held: A transferee pendente lite does not have a
Issue for Consideration An auction was conducted on 31.07.2007 and sale certificate was issued on 30.11.2007. The respondent no.4-guarantor questioned the validity of auction proceedings. In 2019, the High Court declared the auction to be illegal. Whether the High Court failed in noticing jurisdiction. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 – The respondent no.2 had availed of loan facility from the respondent no.1-Bank –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against his conviction, under the 1985 Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Art.21 – Suspension of sentence and bail, pending appeal against conviction – Power of courts – Conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under the 1985 Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment – Since the respondent had undergone
Issue for Consideration Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural justice i.e. rule against bias; whether it is a case of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and is demonstration of prejudice necessary to succeed with a claim of violation of alteram partem; whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram partem at the original stage can be cured, at the revisional stage. Headnotes† Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Principle of natural justice – Rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Death sentence – ghastly incident involving murder of his real brother, sister-in-law, and their four children and awarded death sentence – Acquittal of the co-accused by giving her the benefit of the doubt – Appeal thereagainst by the State, dismissed – Also, dismissal of the appeal filed by
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Admissibility and recovery – Admissibility of CCTV evidence – Requirement of certificate u/s.65 B(4) – On facts, conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 rw ss.397 and 201 IPC for rape and murder of the deceased and sentenced to death
Issue for Consideration Whether the presumption of legitimacy, if not displaced, determines paternity in law; whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit and whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the Maintenance Petition; whether the second round of by the principle of res judicata. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy – Respondent and his mother claimed the appellant to be the respondent’s biological father despite the fact that the respondent was born
Issue for Consideration Whether respondents should have granted the benefit of promotion from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 with all monetary benefits to the appellant. Headnotes† Service Law – Benefit of promotion – Monetary benefits – A – The appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/ S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance – After a detailed enquiry, a minor penalty of reduction in pay for 3 years was imposed on appellant – Promotion that was kept in abeyance stood
Issue for Consideration A plea of a Christian man to accord his father a decent burial in his own native village. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 15 – Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 – Appellant herein is a christian and belongs to the New Apostolic Church – His family and ancestors were native residents of village Chhindwada, Chhattisgarh for generations and belonged to the Mahra caste or community – The appellant’s
Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-Muthoot Finance Ltd. is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – the High Court held that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution: Held: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to
Issue for Consideration Whether the amended six-month limitation, introduced by the 24.04.2015 amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 governs the Appellants’ claim for stamp duty refund, particularly when the Cancellation Deed was executed prior to the thereafter. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.48(1) – Amendment thereto, curtailed the time limit for seeking refund of stamp duty on a registered cancellation deed from two years to six months (from the date of registration of the deed) – Appellants executed
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case qua the appellants-parents. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Prosecution case that complainant in a relationship with the son of the appellants and established physical relations with him only on the assurance that he would marry her – On one occasion, the son of the appellants had taken her to meet them where they also agreed to accept her as their daughter in-law, but later, the
Issue for Consideration The instant criminal appeal assails the findings recorded by the High Court, thereby convicting the appellants herein u/s.302/34 of IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Whether the findings recorded by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case – s.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27 – P.S. Case No. 127/89 was registered on 09.07.1989 arraying six persons as accused for committing murder of father of the informant (PW-8) – The Trial Court acquitted all the six persons, inter-alia, holding that testimonies of
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellants-accused under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable. Headnotes† Evidence – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied solely on recoveries of articles allegedly – Conviction u/s.201, s.302 r/w s.34, IPC – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – Impugned judgments quashed, set aside – Neither the disclosure statements of the accused persons were proved as per law nor the prosecution was able to establish the factum of recoveries of
Issue for Consideration Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in exercise of power under Section 18 of Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and if yes, under what circumstances. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – s.18 – Existence of the statutory remedy and Writ jurisdiction of the High