Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in interdicting CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60(5)(c) – The High Court exercised the power of judicial review and interdicted Process – Correctness: Held: The jurisdiction and power of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) has already been reiterated by this Court in its various decisions – In the instant case, it is important to note that CIRP proceedings commenced on 26.10.2018, six years
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine appellant/respondent’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such – Art.227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.18, 29A – The respondent/claimant cross-examined RW-1 – The unrestrained cross-examination of RW-1 by the respondent/claimant already exceeded 12 hours, however, the respondent/claimant was unsatisfied and
Issue for Consideration Whether the option exercised by Directorate of Health Services (DHS) employees to join Directorate of Medical Education (DME) pursuant to a policy decision of the State of Kerala ought to be considered as an option for absorption or a request for transfer under proviso to State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 and in that situation, the inter-se seniority of such employees in the DME shall be reckoned from which date. Headnotes† Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 – Proviso to r.27(a) – Kerala Service Rules, 1959 – r.36
Issue for Consideration Whether the time for filing an application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the award. Headnotes† Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.17, 14(2) – Award to be signed and filed – Judgment in terms of award – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 119(b) of the First Schedule – 30 days period for filing objections to the award – Start of
Issue for Consideration Matter referred by Joint Sub-Registrar to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for determining the correct market value of the property. When both the authorities viz., the Registering Authority and the Collector are vested with the market value of the property, by the expression ‘reason to believe’, then whether it reflects the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned or it reflects the objective determination of the market value of the property; what is meant by ‘reason to
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the extension of the term of the Claims Commission, and determining the Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits of the villages acquired by Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Compensation claim – Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits – Determination, of land oustees of four acquired
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards summoning a person as accused for facing the trial, when the said person was named in the FIR but not chargesheeted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to – On facts, closure report filed by the I.O. exonerating the petitioners from the alleged offence – In examination-in- chief, the first informant categorically deposed against the petitioners and also attributed a specific overt act – On basis thereof, an application filed
Issue for Consideration Preliminary notification u/s.17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was issued on 20.03.1999 proposing to acquire 4 acres and 15 guntas of land from The entire transaction with regard to acquisition and voluntary surrender of land under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 [the original Incentive Rules of 1989] as well as possession and also notification under
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards invocation of extraordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings FIR registered u/ss.406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC against the accused, including the appellant-foreign national and Project Manager for defaulting in payment to the company – Appellant sought quashing of FIR – However, the High Court refused to quash FIR – Correctness:
Issue for Consideration Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order of the High Court dated 26.03.2018 whereby it has been held that the Will, subject matter of controversy, allegedly of one Testator-SR, had not been proved, thereby finding that the Lower Appellate Court had erred in – s.63 – SR-Testator was the owner of 1/4th share of a land – The Testator had no children and resided with his nephew appellant-GK – He executed a Will on 07.11.2005 and passed away the next day on 08.11.2005 – Having received the said land/property by the virtue
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether the complaint filed by the appellant u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in accordance with the requirement u/s.142 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142 – Code of Criminal Cognizance of offence – Complaint filed by the appellant-power of attorney holder and manager of the appellant-firm u/s.138 against respondent no.1 – Order passed to summon, the sole owner of respondent no.1 – Application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. by respondent no.1 seeking quashing
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether by virtue of operation of the provisions of ss. 14(1) and 12(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the defendant no.1-adoptive mother would become absolute owner of the property prior to the adoption of appellant-adopted son; and as regards the effect of executed thereafter by adoptive mother. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.13, 14 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – ss.12, 16 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.122 – Effects of adoption – Principle of Relation Back –
Issue for Consideration Merely because a Central Government employee works within the territory of a particular State, whether the CBI requires consent from the concerned State Government to register an FIR against such Central Government employee in connection with commission of an Act; whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings against the respondents holding that the same were vitiated in view of the lack of consent and the lack of notification for a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issue for Consideration Whether the application under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could have been made by the Appellant-MCD, a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 2(41) of the Act. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.63, 86, 2(41), 174, 175 process – Functions of the State Commission – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – r.15 – Appellant, if could issue tariff based bid and Request for Proposal (RfP) for setting up the Waste to Energy Project – Petition filed by appellant before the Delhi
Issue for Consideration The Lands of appellants herein were acquired and they were deprived of their property without paying any compensation for twenty-two years. For payment of compensation, the appellants pleaded to shift the date for considering the market value of land as on the and not as on the date of the Preliminary Notification. Whether this Court should direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.300-A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
Issue for Consideration Appellant herein has sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising under sections 353 and 186 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.353 and s.186 – According to the appellant, he is the owner of a hostel used for underprivileged children – the raid on 03.06.2015 and sought to transfer the children accommodated in the said hostel to some other location – Appellant also contended that a false allegation was made against him that he, along with his party, had attacked and assaulted the officials while they were conducting the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the complaint, summoning order and order declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender passed by the Magistrate; whether the proclaimed offender status, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., of an stands acquitted during trial in connection to the very same offence; and whether the subsistence of the proclamation u/s.82 Cr.P.C. necessary for the authorities to proceed against accused against whom such proclamation issued, u/s.174A IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Issue for Consideration Whether reduction in share capital is covered under “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.2(47) – “sale, exchange or relinquishment of Reduction in share capital, if covered within the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset”: Held: Yes – Reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee, is squarely covered within
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Tribunal granting benefit of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to the Appellant-mother. Headnotes† Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and s.23 – Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances – Appellant-mother sought cancellation of the Gift Deed transferring her property to the respondent-son subject to the condition that he provides for her maintenance – Appellant alleged that the conditions in the
Issue for Consideration According to the Range Forest Officer, the appellants (director and office bearers of the company) had illegally uprooted trees with JCB, destroyed them, and violated the section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The question that arises for consideration is be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers of the company. Headnotes† Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – s.4 r/w. s.19 – A license/necessary permission for development of the land in the specified area was granted in favour of a company – Complaint