Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the termination of the first respondent’s service without any enquiry, and approval of the competent authority not preceding the order whereby the first respondent was allowed to continue as Primary Grade Teacher up to the end of the academic thereby that the appellant did not require the first respondent’s service thereafter. Headnotes† Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 – ss.79, 83 – National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 – ss.14, 16 and 17(4) – Termination without any enquiry, and
Issue for Consideration Whether the final decision in TMA Pai Foundation case by 11-Judge Bench renders the decision of the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, impugned herein, liable to be interfered with or not; whether the appellants herein, Government of Karnataka are entitled to any relief or not. Headnotes† Judgments – Operation – Retrospective in application, unless expressly provided to be prospective – Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent- college and quashed
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 Whether, in the facts and circumstances, there could be any breach or violation of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 where, as contended by the appellants: (i) the actions complained about did not result in any loss or harm to the investing public; of the Appellants resulted in gain to the investors; (iii) all three sets of Appellants acted bona fide in the interest of investors and did not make any monetary benefit or gain; (iv) had the Appellants taken steps as postulated by SEBI, there would have been a substantial monetary loss and harm
Issue for Consideration Whether an insolvency notice u/s.9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal; whether a “decree or order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act). Headnotes† Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2) – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – s.19(22A) – One ‘BDL’ availed credit facilities from a consortium of 15 banks, including the Appellant-Bank –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens. Headnotes† Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Constitution of India – Art.226 – BSF Act – 1969 – r.22 – Doctrine of forum non conveniens, misapplication in the context of writ jurisdiction – When – Appellant-BSF Constable had contracted a second marriage without permission of the competent authority, during the subsistence of his first marriage – Dismissed
Issue for Consideration Issue arose that where an appeal u/s.62 IBC is filed within time, i.e., 45 (forty-five) days or beyond the said period but before expiry of 60 (sixty) days as contemplated in the sub-sections thereof and are marked defective, for this Court can condone the delay in refiling of the appeal when the defects pointed out are not cured within 28 (twenty-eight) days. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.62 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord.VIII r.6 Sub-rules (3) and (4) – Condonation
Issue for Consideration The specific issues which arise for determination are: (i) Whether the activities provided u/s.11(g) and (h) of the Railways Act pass muster of “distribution” of electricity, and whether such activities are a necessary pre-requisite to the Act; (ii) Whether the Indian Railways, being an entity of the Central Government, falls within the ambit of “Appropriate Government” u/s.14 of the Electricity Act, 2003; (iii) Whether the Indian Railways, even if held to be a DDL under the Act, is exempt from the obligation to
Issue for Consideration Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, connived with two others (one officer and a gunman) to misappropriate money of the customers for their personal gain, stealing bank records, etc. – The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the co- delinquent gunman while the co-delinquent officer
Issue for Consideration Impugned order challenged by the appellant-convict contending that as he was not made aware of absence of the counsel engaged by him to prosecute the appeal before the Division Bench and as the Division Bench proceeded to appoint the amicus without his knowledge, he may be which he had raised in the memorandum of appeal that was filed in the High Court to secure an order of setting aside the conviction u/s.304 Part II, IPC and the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to allow the appeal by recording an acquittal. Headnotes† Legal Aid –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service, based on its consideration of only a sole point raised on behalf of the first respondent with the other points raised. Headnotes† Judgment/Order – Several issues raised, matter decided considering a solitary point without dealing with other points – Impermissibility – School Tribunal set aside the order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant from
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the applications for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition and condonation of delay in re-filing the same. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of delay of the School filed application for release of grant-in-aid – Tribunal allowed the application by directing the State and the Director to release grant-in-aid in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school – State filed appeal which was time-barred as also not
Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the assessment of the income of the victim and the denial of any amount towards future prospects; and the grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation of victim and grant of future prospects – Fatal road accident – Victim aged about 37 years died instantly when his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry insured with the respondent-insurance company, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner – Claimants (the widow of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether in the absence of a legislatively prescribed framework for quantification of environmental compensation, the NGT could enhance compensation on the basis of project cost; and whether the NGT, in exercise of its powers u/ss.15, 17 and 20 of the National in law to adopt the turnover or project cost of a project proponent inter alia as a relevant yardstick for the computation of environmental compensation. Headnotes† National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss.15, 17 and 20 – Environmental compensation – Enhancement, on
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by interpreting sub-section (4) of s.175, BNSS while issuing consequential directions for the Judicial Magistrate-JM to pass an appropriate order on the appellant’s application without any prayer in this to the order of the JM calling for a report per sub-section (4) of s.175; whether the alleged acts of the public servants, fall within the discharge of their official duties; whether sub-section (4) of s.175, BNSS is a stand-alone provision or is it to be read in continuation of/as a
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellants sustaining the objections raised by the Registry of the High Court as to why multiple reliefs were claimed in a single prayer; why a particular party was joined as – Cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary – Writ petition filed by appellants-borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 alleging that the advocate appointed as
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 Does the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House motion by the Presiding Officer of the other House; whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion; what is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman’s refusal
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