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 Does the mandatory time frame prescribed by the proviso to Or.VIII r.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a counter-claim raised by the defendant in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VIII, r.1, r.6E – Mandatory time frame – Written statement to counter-claim – By order dated 19.08.2024 in GA (COM) No.4 of 2024 in CS (COM) No.440 of 2024, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the appellants
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards enhancement of compensation in the case of five year old child paralyzed in a motor accident. Headnotes† Compensation – Motor accident matter – Enhancement of compensation – Five year old child paralyzed in a motor accident Rs.14,84,233/- as compensation, which was enhanced by an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by the High Court – Appeal seeking further enhancement: Held: Minimum wages for a skilled labourer in the year 2018 is Rs.9,560/-, which has to be enhanced with 40% for future prospects and a multiplier adopted
Issue for Consideration Whether the order of conviction by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court, based on the circumstances of the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of the objects used as weapons and a motorbike, seizures from the place of occurrence, oral ought to be reversed. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Complete chain of circumstances, when not established – Trial court found from the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of the objects used as weapons and a motorbike, the seizures carried out
Issue for Consideration Whether the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold by NCLAT. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal with delay before NCLAT without certified copy of the impugned order passed by NCLT – Defects intimated by Registry – Appeal refiled with a delay of 150 days again without the certified copy of the order impugned – NCLAT allowed the
Issue for Consideration National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is aggrieved by enhancement of the compensation payable to a landowner, respondent no.1-Alfa Remidis Ltd. Headnotes† National Highways Act, 1956 – 3G(5) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.26 – Respondent no.1, claimed ownership over an extent of 1,394 square meters in Survey No. 66 of Mouza Pardi (Rithi) in Tahsil-Saoner, Nagpur District – The Deputy Collector, Land
Issue for Consideration Once the prescribed limitation period u/s.61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 expired, whether it was open to the suspended director to take steps to convert the incompetent appeal and maintain an appeal in his Code, 2016 – ss.16, 17, 61 – A suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited, the corporate debtor, filed the present appeal u/s.62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by the NCLAT – By the said judgment, the
Issue for Consideration Whether a notice seeking commencement of arbitration, issued on 02.06.2022, could set in motion the process of resolution of a dispute regarding a work completed as early as on 30.07.2000. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.42, 43 – 18 – Work completed in the year 2000 – Notice seeking commencement of arbitration issued after 21 years in 2022 – By way of the impugned judgment, Arbitrator appointed by High Court – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – Arbitration though is an alternate dispute
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused despite the alleged dying declarations, motive and testimony of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to establish the prosecution case. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Shanty in which the old couple were residing gutted in a fire, killing the old man immediately and his wife died two days later in a hospital – Prosecution case that the younger son and daughter-in-law of the couple, due to previous land disputes, torched the hut with the intention to
Issue for Consideration Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding absence of the demand of bribe, the conviction of both the accused (A1 and A2) was overturned by the High Court. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B Tax Officer-A2 made a demand of Rs.5 lakhs purportedly on behalf of appellant, Assessing Officer-A1 – PW1 approached CBI – PW1 is alleged to have informed A2 that he had in his possession only Rs.2 lakhs – Trap was laid – PW1 then went to the office room of A1, where
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the reduction of share capital u/s.66 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the consequent forced exit of minority shareholders, was arbitrary and unfair. Headnotes† Companies Act, 2013 – s.66 – Reduction of share capital – company, held a fraction of 1.09% of shares – Respondent no.1 decided to reduce its share capital u/s.66, by cancelling 28,457,840 equity shares held by the minority shareholders and paying them an exit price of Rs.163.25 per share which was subsequently raised to Rs.196.80 per share
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis; whether the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and that of ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Statement of accused made when not in police custody, outside the purview of s.27 – High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the step-father for the murder of his six year-old
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent No.1 extending the parity principle ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Bail – Offences of pecuniary nature – Factors to be u/ss.406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, IPC, s.409 added later, alleging that he had supplied foodgrains to four accused persons including respondent No.1 (operating under different names), but he was paid only ₹5,02,57,000/- out of the total sum of ₹11,52,38,156/- and; the accused
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to grant of bail to the appellant for commission of offence punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act r/w s.135 of the Customs Act; and the right of the accused to free legal aid counsel. Headnotes† Narcotic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 – Customs Act, 1962 – s.135 – Bail – Grant of – Case registered against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act r/w
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the reach and sweep of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995; whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the injunction simpliciter sought for before the Waqf Tribunal fell within its jurisdiction; whether the jurisdiction and that of the High Court affirming it ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Wakf Act, 1995 – ss.6(1), 7(1), 83 – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit before the Tribunal seeking perpetual injunction with respect to the scheduled property which was neither specified
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the accused by the High Court, based on confession without corroboration, reversing the order of acquittal by the Trial Court is justified. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Conviction based on confession without corroboration reversed the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court, finding the accused guilty of murder of the victim – Challenge to: Held: A confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made – However, a Court shall not
Issue for Consideration Whether cognizance of the alleged offences u/ss.448 and 451, Companies Act, 2013 could have been taken on a private complaint in view of the statutory scheme of the Companies Act and if not, whether the criminal proceedings must be quashed in respect of those sections; if offences u/ss.448 and 451, Companies Act ought to be quashed, would the criminal proceedings also have to be quashed in respect of the offences under the IPC in light of the provisions as contained in s.436(2), Companies Act; whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
Issue for Consideration Whether present is a case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the respondent-delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry or they be permitted to continue. Headnotes† Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis Criminal proceedings when cannot be quashed on the exoneration of the delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry – Respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor – Contractor complained to the Anti-Corruption