Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the respondent rendered services falling within the category of ‘Real Estate Agent’, taxable u/s.65(105)(v) r/w. s.65(88) of the Finance Act, 1994, during the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2007; (ii) Whether the appellant-Commissioner has deliberately suppressed facts, thereby justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – ss.65(105)(v), 65(88), 65(89), 65B(44)(a)(i), proviso to s.73(1) – Central Excise
Issue for Consideration Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is unsustainable in law and hence would be hit by s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1996; Whether the caterers were entitled to seek parity for the second regular meal on par with that payable for the first regular meal during the period in question; Whether the Railways was well within its domain under Clause 8.1 of the MLA in reinstating the welcome drink to be provided to passengers. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to sustainability of the order passed by the High Court in batch of writ petitions wherein the landholders questioned the legality of revenue annotations and mutation entries that described their lands as affected by forest proceedings and as having Headnotes† Forest Act, 1927 – s.35 – Protection of forests for special purposes – Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA) – 2(f)(iii) – Private forest – Writ petitions by the landholders challenging the legality of revenue
Issue for Consideration Three distinct issues: Part-I pertains to the compliance affidavits filed by the States and Union Territories pursuant to this Court’s earlier directions and the summary report prepared by the Amicus Curiae; Part II concerns the modification, application directions issued by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14726 of 2025; Part III concerns the issuance of further directions in respect of institutional areas, including educational establishments, hospitals, sports complexes, and other public
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby it disposed of the writ petition without granting any substantive relief as prayed for by the petitioners-allottees in a Group Housing Project stalled for nearly two decades. Headnotes† Housing Project – Stalled for nearly two decades – Prolonged litigation – Need for a comprehensive, structured examination by an independent fact-finding authority – In 2004, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) allotted a plot in favour of Golf Course Sahkari
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regard the sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) to r.19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of documents, if proof of mutation of the property under sale in favour of the vendor not produced along with if ultra vires the Act. Headnotes† Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – r.19 (xvii) and (xviii) – Refusal of duly presented document – Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) introduced by way of amendments to r.19 empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of documents,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the interpretation of the term ‘previous Financial Year’ as defined in r.27(4)(iv) of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016; and justification of the order passed by the High Court that bid of the unsuccessful bidder was rightly with r.27(4)(iv) and upheld the grant of tender in favour of successful bidder, however, called upon the successful bidder to match the highest price offered by the unsuccessful bidder. Headnotes† Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 – r.27(4)(iv) –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered release deeds are valid and binding, and if so, what is their legal effect on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3; whether the document styled as the palupatti-partition deed can be relied purposes to establish severance of status as well as the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment; and what constitutes the partitionable estate and how the shares are to be worked out inter se the parties, including the treatment of Schedule “B” property and item no. 17 of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which were later on added in the FIR and not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of s.482 of the Cr.PC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Marriage between the appellant and respondent no.1 was solemnized in accordance with Muslim
Issue for Consideration Grievance of the claimant-appellants is w.r.t the application of split multiplier by the High Court, causing a significant reduction in the total compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, vis-à-vis, the Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Calculation of – Application of split multiplier – Impermissibility – Deceased, an Assistant Engineer in the PWD, aged 51 years died in a car accident – Appellants (wife and children of the deceased)
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Judge granting plans put forward by the respondents for construction of a residential house. Headnotes† Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Deemed sanction of plan for construction of a residential house – Grant of – Respondent decided to dismantle 85 years old house which was in a
Issue for Consideration Whether Clause 8.28 of the Agreement can be considered to be a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.7 – Arbitration agreement – When a private healthcare institution entered into a Software Implementation Agreement with the respondent, specialising in digital health-management platforms for upgrading its existing hospital-information software to a more advanced, integrated system – Disputes arose between the parties
Issue for Consideration Whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger bench. Headnotes† Position of Law – Case Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr, 2010 INSC 188 : [2010] 4 SCR 334 – Whether a different view required: Held: No reason to take a different view. [Para 22] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 341, 427, 120-B r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
Issue for Consideration The High Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court by recording a finding that by failing to disclose conviction in the affidavit filed along with nomination form, there was a breach of Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 and was rightly set aside. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 – s.22(1)(d)(iii) – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 – Petitioner suffered a conviction u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments
291 : 2025 INSC 1288 Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025) 06 November 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Penal Code, 1860 now of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023). Headnotes†
Issue for Consideration Whether the executing Court erred in dismissing the execution petition as not maintainable; whether the decree passed by the first appellate Court having been passed in an appeal, where both the appellants had expired prior to the appeal being in favour of dead persons was a nullity; In the instant case, whether the decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be executed. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of decree – AT was allotted an agricultural land being an Ex-Army Serviceman – After
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC-Judicial Magistrate First Class u/s.156(3) CrPC which was quashed by the impugned orders, justified; had sufficient material before it so as to justify the course of action of referring the matter for investigation to the police invoking power u/s.156(3) of the Code, resulting in the institution of the FIR. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.156(3), 482 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route in terms of an IS-RT Agreement-Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement executed by and between two of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when portion of such inter-State route is common to intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved per the provisions of Chapter VI of the MV Act. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.88 – Validation of permits for use
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the objections filed by the appellant u/s.47 CPC and in dismissing the same; and whether at least prima facie the case of breach of fiduciary duty has been established Act, 1996 – ss.34, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47 – Objections under – Maintainability – Long Term Agreement-LTA between the petitioner and the respondent – Respondent invoked arbitration clause claiming damages on account of the
Issue for Consideration When an individual has the association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police directly summon the lawyer that the Investigating Agency/ Prosecuting Agency/ Police has a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then should they be directly permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criterion of cases.