Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether in the light of the contents of the award, permitting the appellant to retain the money would tantamount to unjustly enriching the appellant; and did the respondent, satisfy the necessary parameters for obtaining relief u/s.9 of Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.9 – Interim measures, etc., by Court – Memorandum of Understanding between the appellant and the respondent pursuant to which the respondent was provided Rs.3.5 crores as Mobilisation Advance
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 Issue arose whether the pleadings of the plaintiff were deficient and self-contradictory as to lay a proper challenge to the Will, if so, its consequence; whether non-examination of the plaintiff, or any witness of fact on its behalf, was sufficient to dismiss the suit; the execution of the Will, if so, whether those suspicious circumstances were explained, and doubts dispelled, to the satisfaction of the Court’s conscience; and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s.100 CPC in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the two
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a case of death occurring within the absolute privacy of a matrimonial home, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a homicidal hanging staged by the appellant-husband after an assault—thereby shifting facts to the husband—or whether it was a case of voluntary suicidal hanging as claimed by the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant, was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was tormented and tortured
Issue for Consideration Whether the Decree in question is a simple Preliminary Decree, or whether the Trial Court, made it both a Preliminary and a Final Decree; whether the same could be put to Execution; whether the High Court erred in interdicting the Execution Proceedings holding that before Decree was necessary. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.2(2), Or.XX r.18, Or.XX r.12 – Preliminary decree when itself final decree – Appellant filed Suit for partition and separate possession of the Subject Flat – Preliminary Decree passed by Trial Court
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether r.6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules mandates that the State Eligibility Test-SET qualification must be in the concerned subject only for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers-HSST or in any subject so, whether the appellant satisfies the said requirement or qualifies for exemption u/r.10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules. Headnotes† Kerala Education Rules – Chapter XXXII, r.6(2)(24)(iii) – Interpretation – Essential qualifications for appointment as Higher Secondary
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld by the High Court. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of documents – Appellant-court duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that the appellant had approached him and received some tablets but he did not remember the date of treatment –
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 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 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 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
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the accused added during trial u/s.319 CrPC, entitled to bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty – FIR registered against nine accused persons, persons, whereas the closure report filed as regards the remaining six co-accused – On basis of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, application u/s.319 filed by the first informant before the trial court seeking that the six co-accused dropped by the police to be added and
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant-Judicial Officer from service. Headnotes† Judiciary – District judiciary – Departmental on the allegation that extraneous considerations actuated passing of bail orders – Mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, not a ground to initiate departmental proceedings against Judicial Officers – Complainant lodged
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent u/s.11, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6A) – Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s.41 A&C Act application filed by the respondent seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in accordance with clause 33 of the arbitration agreement of the Leave and License Agreement, and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties – Appellant took objection that
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court by the impugned order was justified in holding that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed at the request of the State to adjudicate dispute No.1 only; was the non-issuance of a notice u/s.21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant its claim before the Arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Four packages of Road Maintenance Contract were awarded to the appellant – Appellant quantified the amounts due and submitted the same for decision by the Executive Engineer – As per the
Issue for Consideration i) Whether the sole arbitrator could be said to have become “ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator” by virtue of sub-section (5) of s.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; ii) whether the parties could be said to have waived (5) of s.12 of the Act, 1996, by way of their conduct, either expressed or implied; iii) whether the appellants could have raised an objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator for the first time in an application u/s.34 of the Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and