Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Children’s Court against the appellant-minor at the time of commission of offence, and affirmed by the High Court, can be sustained in the absence of an order u/s.19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and (Care and Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.19(1), 18(3), 15, 2(13), 2(20) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Powers of Children’s Court – Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law – FIR against
Issue for Consideration Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence u/Art.227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to the subject matter – present appeal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII R.11, Or.VI R.16 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court – What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-original plaintiff, is the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to accused-appellants in relation to arrests made pursuant to Delhi Riots, 2020, considering the prolonged incarceration, and the constitutional plea u/Art.21 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – s.43D(5) – Delhi Riots, 2020 – Bail sought by accused-appellants considering the prolonged incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21 – Prosecution case that the appellants conspired to orchestrate and execute the 2020 Delhi Riots as a form of protest against
Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment dated 28 June 2019, the High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought by the appellant, Adani Power Limited, which had inter alia prayed for a declaration that no customs duty was leviable on electrical energy generated in its power plant located supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), and for consequential refund of amounts deposited towards such duty. The High Court took the view that its earlier judgment delivered in 2015 in favour of the appellant was confined to a particular notification and period, and could not be extended to