Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondents, who admittedly traded (sold) their shareholding in Tara Jewels Limited while in possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information, could escape the charge of insider trading under Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations, that the purpose of the sale was a legitimate corporate purpose (i.e., to save the company from being downgraded to a non-performing asset), and whether the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) erred in setting aside the Whole Time Member’s (WTM) order on this ground. Headnotes†
Issue for Consideration Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court requires reconsideration. Headnotes† Matrimonial Disputes – Maintenance – Enhancement of – High Court partly enhanced the child maintenance to Rs.1,25,000/- per month for both the children deductions as shown by the Respondent-husband are voluntary in nature and include voluntary contributions such as ESPPs which cannot be treated as compulsory deductions to reduce monthly income for the purposes of maintenance – In addition, it was also submitted that the Appellant’s
Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment, the High Court declined to give effect to the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Goa, which had granted the appellants temporary status and recognised their entitlement to establishment of the PWD as and when vacancies arose. Whether the said order of the High Court is liable to be set aside; whether, after availing those services continuously over a long period and thereafter conferring temporary status upon them, the State can legitimately deny appellants
Issue for Consideration Whether the amalgamation of Hindustan Commercial Bank- Respondent No.1 with Punjab National Bank-Respondent No.2, effected pursuant to the scheme framed under the Banking Regulation Act, of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 or not. Headnotes† Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 – s.14(1)(b) – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Effect of amalgamation on tenancy rights – s.14(1)(b), 1958 Act, if attracted – Original tenant-Hindustan Commercial Bank
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law. Headnotes† Customary laws – Customs – Proving of customs before the court – Uncle-in-law, if can adopt his niece’s It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law – High Court even though framed the issue did not answer the same simply because there were concurrent findings – Ordinarily, once a substantial
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether LMT-IT company’s prayer seeking to place on record additional documents denied by the High Court is in accordance with law. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.XI r.1(4) and and discovery of documents – Dispute pertaining to mobile application ‘app’ between the parties – Legal notice to the Bank by the IT company asking the Bank to pay Rs.4.46 cr, however claim denied – Civil suit filed before the High Court, which was later
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 Issue arose that for assessing the annual income of a deceased person or claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act, the ITRs for the previous year appropriate or average of the past two/three years to be Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation – Computation of annual income of the deceased victim on the basis of ITRs – Victim aged 39 years, sole breadwinner, running his own construction business, met with a road accident and succumbed to his
Issue for Consideration Whether a Magistrate must record evidence when the offence is strictly triable by the Court of Sessions as in this case, where the allegations were inter alia u/s.302 of IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.244 – In the year 2007, a between the appellant- complainant and his father on one side, with the respondents on the other – His father in the course thereof fell down and lost consciousness – Later, he died – No FIR was registered – In the year 2008, appellant-complainant sought direction
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant’s application for grant of remission to the State of Haryana will be governed by the ‘Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002’ dated 12.04.2002 or the subsequent Policy dated 13.08.2008 termed as ‘Premature Release of as notified by the Jails and Judicial Department, Government of Haryana. Headnotes† Remission – Grant of – Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002 – Premature Release of Life Convicts 2008 – The appellant stood convicted for murder of a 12 year old child,
Issue for Consideration Whether the filing of charge-sheet without additional copies as required by s.193(8) of the BNSS would entitle the appellant for the benefit of default bail. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8) – Default Bail without additional copies, does not entitle the accused for the benefit of default bail – FIR u/s.61(2) r/w ss.318, 336 and 340, BNS, 2023; s.7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.66, IT Act, 2000 for cyber fraud of Rs.3.81 crores – Appellant-accused sought default bail
Issue for Consideration Whether the compromise as accepted by the Civil Court on 22.02.1994 was in accordance with Or.XXIII r.3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or not. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXIII r.3 – The plaintiff filed a partition suit, including, present respondent, seeking 1/4th share in the total property of common ancestor – During the pendency thereof, a compromise petition was filed by the plaintiffs and defendants ‘jointly’ which was accepted by Sub-Judge-01 Muzaffarpur vide order dated 22.02.1994 – Pursuant
Issue for Consideration Challenge by the appellant to the correctness of the refusal of the High Court to quash the criminal case and the issuance of process by the Magistrate, in connection with the complaint filed against her alleging that in her electoral filing for the position of elections, she did not disclose the true extent of the property owned by herself and her spouse contrary to the rules; propriety of the cognizance order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465 – Gujarat Municipalities Act – Gujarat Municipalities
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the dismissal order was passed by the competent authority; whether a fresh show-cause notice for punishment was required after the de novo proceedings before the labour court; whether the plea relating to subsistence whether the direction treating the suspension period as punishment is valid; and whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. Headnotes† MSEDCL Employees Services Regulations, 2005 – Dismissal from service – Appellant-Upper Division Clerk in the service of
Issue for Consideration Whether the earlier proceedings provided opportunity enough for the plaintiff by being substantially similar, to raise the point of his ownership of the suit properties by virtue of the 1960 sale deed when the main ground urged otherwise was cancellation of sale Court in terms of the impugned judgment erred in dismissing the suit as being barred by constructive res judicata. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.11 – Principle of constructive res judicata – Inapplicability, when – A portion of the property totalling
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by respondent no.1 that were caused due to the falling of a roadside tree on the vehicle by which the respondent no.1 was under the tree waiting for the rain to subside and then proceed further. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Claim petition – Falling of a tree on an auto, if would qualify as an accident for which claim can be filed – Respondent was traveling
Issue for Consideration Whether amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing- cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, which mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, Haryana and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED) while taking decisions relating to appointments, is mandatory in nature or merely directory; whether the recruitment and appointments made pursuant to the resolution dated 13.08.2014 were in contravention of the mandatory requirements prescribed u/r.3 and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the monetisation/quantification of a homemaker’s efforts/ contribution in cases of motor accidents claims involving the death of a homemaker; inordinate delay in disposal of motor accident claims and the need for Claims – Death of a homemaker – Compensation – Loss of Domestic Care, an additional head – Role of homemaker as a nation builder and economic entity; recognition of multitudes of facets – Discussed: Held: When a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning s.37 of the NDPS Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Offences to be cognizable and and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent – Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail –
Issue for Consideration The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths, roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the writ petition seeking removal of of