Issue for Consideration The High Court in the First Appeal accepted the Memorandum of Registration exhibited by the plaintiff and decreed the suit for recovery of money. The appellant herein, who was the defendant, contented that the suit claim was barred by limitation. Whether the suit claim Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Partnership Act, 1932 – s.69(2) – A suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent- plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court – It was found that the plaintiff’s status as a registered partnership firm
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the appeal by the appellant, convicted u/s.302 IPC, with sentence of life imprisonment filed after undergoing 22 years in prison. Headnotes† Criminal justice – Access to justice – Incarceration of almost 22 years – Appellant for murder of three women – Appellant already undergoing sentence past 12 years, filed ‘Jail Memo of Appeal’ against the order of conviction – Also filed application seeking condonation of delay of 3157 days in filing jail appeal – High Court rejected the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the explanations appended to r.38 of the 2016 Rules and r.45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules ultra vires Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as well as s.9 of the MMDR Act to the extent that the levy provides for inclusion of royalty and DMF and NMET in the sale value. Headnotes† Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Explanation appended to r.38 – Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 – Explanation to r.45(8)(a) – Constitutional validity
Issue for Consideration Whether there existed any fiduciary relationship between the Respondent-Plaintiff and ‘KR’ so as to exempt the transaction in question from the rigour of the Benami law; whether the suit schedule properties are liable to confiscation u/s.27 of the Prohibition a bar u/s.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 since ‘KR’ was allegedly murdered by the Respondent; whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court whereby it had allowed the application filed by
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant-assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs.21,74,234/- being the interest paid by it in respect of the loan availed from the Corporation Bank u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Headnotes† Income Tax Act 1961 – interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business or profession – Assessee, if eligible for deduction of interest paid to the bank u/s.36(1)(iii) – Assessee borrowed loan from the Bank and paid interest in order to invest the same in its share business –
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’; whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be available to the appellants. Headnotes† Code of under, when not available – First respondent-complainant (wife of the deceased) filed complaint against three police officials viz. co-accused-‘SM’, an Assistant Commissioner of Police; the first-appellant and the second-appellant, a Police Constable alleging that at the
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether there is a valid undertaking by way of a guarantee executed by Defendant No.1 and whether Defendant No.1 can absolve from its liability; (ii) Whether the reasons adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court Court. Headnotes† Contract Act, 1872 – ss.126, 127, 128, 137, 138, 140, 141 – Plaintiff-Goltens Dubai carried out extensive repair works on the vessel Master Panos at request of the owner – Defendant No.1 had entered into a Charter Party Agreement dated 09.03.1998 with
Issue for Consideration The present writ petition has been filed by the Mizo Chief Council, through its President, on behalf of the tribal chieftains. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents seized/acquired the lands of these chieftains The following questions fall for consideration: (i) Whether the writ petition is hit by delay and laches; (ii) Whether any fundamental rights of the Mizo Chiefs were violated. Headnotes† Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief’s Rights) Act, 1954 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was well within its reasons to grant the anticipatory bail by restricting it upto the stage of filing of the chargesheet; What will be the position, when an accused has been released on bail, pending the investigation, and later upon completion of addition of new cognizable and non-bailable offences. Headnotes† Bail – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Dowry death – An FIR was registered u/s.80(2)/85 BNS and ss.3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The appellant/brother- in-law of the
Issue for Consideration Interlocutory application was filed seeking direction as regards the appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for comprehensive and scientific analysis of direction to the Ministry of Education to extend all necessary administrative support, infrastructure, data access, and to provide appropriate remuneration/honorarium to Dr. Anant, as per prevalent norms or as may be fixed by the Court. Headnotes† Interlocutory Application –
Issue for Consideration Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee formed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2025 to address the community. Headnotes† Appointment of a member of the Advisory Committee – Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member to the Advisory Committee formed by
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in saying that the proceedings held by the Arbitral Tribunal on the seven relevant dates, i.e., from 17.03.2022 to 25.08.2022 were liable to be declared as nullity on the premise that those proceedings were undertaken during u/s.14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11, s.15(2), s.15(3), s.17 and s.37 – The appellants and respondent (now under liquidation) entered into a partnership firm to develop and construct an SRA project
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether dispute with regard to the existence and validity of Clause 23 of the Contract Agreement clause could have been raised before the arbitrator; that the appointment of the arbitrator was during SBP & Co’s case regime amendments which came into effect from 23.10.2015, were the courts below justified in setting aside the award by holding that the clause 23 of the contract was not an arbitration agreement. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Appointment of
Issue for Consideration Whether the Adjudicating Authority could have, on the facts of the present case, in the process of adjudicating the application of respondent no.1-GCL, recorded a finding that the trademark “Gloster” was an asset of the respondent no.2-Corporate Debtor (FGIL) appellant. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60(5) – Jurisdiction of NCLT – Corporate Debtor – Respondent no.2-FGIL (Corporate Debtor) was hauled up before the Adjudicating Authority u/s.9 of IBC – Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed
Issue for Consideration Whether s.17-A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17-A – Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made public servant in discharge of official functions or duties – Benefit of s.17-A, not applicable to cases of demand of illegal gratification – Petitioners were sought to be prosecuted for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 7A – High Court held that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of
Issue for Consideration Whether the State police or a Special Agency of the State has jurisdiction to investigate the offences of bribery and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the Central Government employees. Headnotes† Prevention – s.17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.4(2) r/w s.156 – Petitioners were sought to be prosecuted for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 7A – High Court held that if any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is committed by an employee of the Central
Issue for Consideration Whether the fee paid by the appellant to the personalities/speakers, through their booking agents, is liable to Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism, more particularly under the taxable category of “Event Management r/w. s.65(105)(zu) respectively of Chapter V of the Finance Act. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(105)(zu) r/w. ss.65(40) and 65(41) – The appellant assessee conducted annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit (the Summit) – Speakers were invited from outside India
Issue for Consideration The disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutions across the country and the necessity to understand the underlying causes contributing to distress amongst students. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 the recommendations of the National Task Force – Directions issued: Held: (i) The Sample Registration System data on Suicides, especially those falling within the age group of 15-29 years, must be centrally maintained for better and more accurate estimates of Deaths by Suicide of students
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the NCLAT was correct in admitting Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; and whether the NCLAT was correct in rejecting the Intervention application filed by Code, 2016 – ss.5(8)(f), 7, 7(5)(a) – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP – Locus standi to intervene in proceedings u/s.7 – Appellant-Corporate debtor availed financial assistance of Rs.70 crores from
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was wrongly denied employment, despite having qualified for the interview, and declared unfit on the ground that she had multiple disability but had applied as a visually handicapped candidate (since the notification advertising the vacancies did not intersectionality of disability with gender justice. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – “reasonable accommodation” – Constitution of India – Art.41 r/w 14 & 21; Art.142 – Advertisement was published by Coal India