Issue for Consideration Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the employment of the appellant on the ground of furnishing false information as regards his criminal antecedents, in the given facts and circumstances, was permissible Termination from service on ground of suppression or supply of false information – When not justified – Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the employment of the appellant on the ground of furnishing false information as regards his criminal antecedents was
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in declining to examine, at the threshold, the effect of the official service certificate establishing the appellant’s absence from the place of occurrence; whether the acquittal of the co-accused appellant’s parents, on an arising from the very same F.I.R., has a material bearing on the continuation of proceedings against the appellant; and whether, on a cumulative reading of the record, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, warranting
Issue for Consideration Whether the Single Judge rightly enforced the appellants’ duty under s.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by directing inter alia that he be reinstated in service with all consequential Bench was grossly wrong in not reversing such directions. Headnotes† Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – s.47 – Respondent- Constable (Driver) in CRPF, was medically invalidated from service on account of
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of the criminal complaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.136, 226, 14 – Inordinate delay in the investigation of the criminal complaint – Complaint by appellants-original complainant, in the year 2007, before the Judicial Magistrate against respondents 1 to 4 u/ss.120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 IPC alleging that while he was away on Haj pilgrimage, the accused persons forged his signatures and prepared bogus partition deed and fake sale
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-husband was subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of law and; whether the marital bond between the parties has ruptured to such an extent that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, rendering any reconciliation impossible and u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’; ‘desertion’ – Dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers u/Art.142, on the ground
Issue for Consideration Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not. Headnotes† CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 labourer, if entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization – Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning
Issue for Consideration Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words,
Issue for Consideration Issues arose whether the second application u/Ord.VII r.11 is barred by the principle of Res judicata; whether s.6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act operates as a bar to the institution of a suit, warranting rejection of the plaint u/Ord.VII r.11(d); and whether the the H.S. Act that is independent of the 2005 Amendment and unaffected by s.6(5). Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11(a), (b) & (d), ss.11, 115 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.6, 6(5), 8 – Rejection of plaint – Res judicata –
Issue for Consideration Whether u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 under, cannot be invoked seeking directions for registration of FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available – Complainant Company filed complaints before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Office alleging forgery, impersonation and fraud by accused persons including
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court u/s.319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by the Court below. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under a mini trial – Trial Court and High Court refused to allow the Appellant- complainant’s application to summon additional accused filed u/s.319 holding that the evidence of the complainant was inconsistent with the FIR and the documentary record, and that the statements of PW-6
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of High Court ought to have interfered with the Single Judge’s judgment and order of dismissal of first respondent’s writ petition as well as the order cancelling allotment of the plot in question, having overarching public interest involved. Headnotes† Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 – Auction – Allotment of Plot – First respondent was allotted a plot to construct a multiplex cum shopping mall on the plot – In the meanwhile, a decision was taken
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant is a person aggrieved having locus standi to maintain the writ appeals notwithstanding that the State of Rajasthan had not challenged the directions given by the Single Judges by preferring appeals; that what is a waiting list; right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment accrues; that did the right (if, at all) accrue on and from the date of refusal to accept the offer by the candidates who were offered appointment or from any prior date; that if no requisition is received by the appellant from
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether persons who were arrayed as respondents in the consumer complaints but ultimately against whom no notice was issued and the complaints did not proceed, could be brought within the net premise that they were directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.71 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.14(3) – Enforcement of orders of District Commission, State Commission and National Commission
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby resulting in automatic vacation in terms of r.9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.21, 9(2) – Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 – r.9 – “Commencement of arbitral proceedings”