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 the Appellant, being the co-owner of the suit building fell within the statutory definition of ‘landlord’ under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; what constitutes a pleading; what is the distinction between the pleading stand satisfied in the present case. Headnotes† Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – s.5(3) – “landlord” – Small Causes Court decreed the eviction suit in favour of Appellant-Plaintiff No.1 (a co-landlord as well as co-owner of the
453 : 2026 INSC 463 Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2026) 08 May 2026 [Manoj Misra* and Manmohan JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the decree of specific performance passed by the trial court merged in the order of the appellate court even though the to make deposit of the balance amount and, pursuant thereto, the amount was also deposited; and whether the rescission of the contract and consequential dismissal of the execution application vitiated by a pedantic approach of the courts below as they failed to consider the facts and
Issue for Consideration If Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) are to be added on salary and pension payable to serving employees and retired employees, respectively, whether there could be a higher rate for enhancement of DA than what it is for DR. Headnotes† Constitution of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief – Retired employees of KSRTC filed a writ petition questioning the lower rate fixed for enhancement of DR on pension than what was fixed for enhancement of DA on salary – Their grievance was that the serving employees got enhancement of DA by 14
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 323, 324 and 302 rw s.34 – Culpable homicide – Use of the word ‘bastard’, if obscene –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-surgeon performed Orchidopexy-surgical procedure, on a one and a half year boy, for which doctors had obtained consent – Appellant also performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the boy – Allegations by
Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated. Headnotes† U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of the paddy procurement centre at
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 post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward; (ii) Whether in the enquiry report and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not pressed before the High Court. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings u/s.420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Offence of cheating – Appellant- movie producer borrowed money from the complainant on assurance that it would in profits – Appellant issued two post-dated cheques towards return of the principal amount – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account – Complaint for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust – Petition for quashing of report and
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, a body corporate, while availing services of the Bank to deposit its surplus funds in an interest bearing term deposit, such as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), could be considered a consumer as defined in Protection Act, 1986; whether the nature of allegations made in the complaint were such that they took the claim outside the purview of proceedings under the 1986 Act. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – “consumer” – NCDRC dismissed the
Issue for Consideration In the present case the court is concerned with the question as to whether the objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and whether the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in s.52 of the Transfer of Property Act is squarely applicable or Procedure, 1908 – s.47 – Or.XXI rr.35, 97 to 102 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Respondent no.1-plaintiff (decree holder) had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant-judgment debtor – Since the defendant
Issue for Consideration Whether F.A. No. 213 of 2000 abated on non-substitution of LRs of ‘M’ i.e., appellant 1(2), who was one of the LRs of deceased- judgment debtor ‘K’; whether the order of the High Court dtd.03.05.2013, holding that appellants No. 2 and 3 along with of ‘K’ in the appeal, would, by the principle of res judicata, bar a declaration that the appeal had abated; whether by allowing impleadment of the heirs and legal representatives of ‘M’ as proforma respondents in F. A. No. 213 of 2000, vide order dtd.03.05.2013, the