Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the activity undertaken by the Assessee at its warehouse, the grouping and, to whatever extent, the fitting together of imported modules into Xerox Photocopier machines to meet a customer’s need, amounts to “manufacture” within of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Note 6 to s.XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.2(f) – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Note 6 to s.XVI of the First Schedule – Grouping and, fitting
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a suit where the evidence of the parties stood closed and final arguments of the defendant’s side had already concluded, the Trial Court (and the High Court, in modifying the Trial Court’s orders) could permissibly exercise power u/Or.XVIII r.17 CPC r.14 CPC) to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence, recall PW-1, and receive fresh documents and further, whether such recall could be extended to permit cross-examination of the recalled witness. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XVIII, r.17 – The appeals arose from
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the compensation awarded by the High Court even after enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal meets the requirement of ‘just compensation’ within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act; and whether having regard to the nature of claimant and the lifelong consequences flowing therefrom, the appellant is entitled to further enhancement of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Compensation – Enhancement – Requirement of ‘just compensation’ – Motor
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the just and fair compensation to be awarded to the claimant-skilled carpenter in the facts of the case, the parameters and the permissible heads of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Compensation – Enhancement while travelling on his motorcycle, was hit by Jeep driven rashly and negligently, coming from the wrong side of the road – Claimant suffered serious injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg, from above the knee and became completely disabled – Tribunal awarded
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the concurrent finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts below; and the enhancement of compensation on the ground that the future earning potential of the deceased was not adequately assessed under the conventional heads was not fully granted. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.166 and 140 – Enhancement of the compensation – Victim, aged 20 years pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final), and undergoing articleship, was travelling in the car driven by
Issue for Consideration Appellant herein met with an accident, his right leg above the knee was amputated. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs.10,84,330/- to Rs.23,86,320/-. Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant requires modification and of earning capacity suffered by the appellant deserves to be computed by treating the functional disability at 100%. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Enhancement of compensation – The appellant was proceeding on his bicycle when a lorry coming from behind,
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the appellant/ plaintiff failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract and whether the delayed filing of the suit for specific performance undermines such readiness Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – The appellant/original plaintiff and the respondent/original defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 20.12.1990 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- for a vacant site – An amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the appellant as earnest money and
Issue for Consideration The present appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 of the High Court. Thereby, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the appellant and held the appellant guilty of commission of offences u/ss.302 and and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 323 – Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) – On 14.02.2013, victim-deceased had eloped with appellant’s younger sister
Issue for Consideration Whether the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the appellants- accused for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act as well as for the offences u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – “a place within public view”, when not – Offence u/s.3(1)(r) and/or s.3(1)(s) not made out if alleged caste-based abuses are hurled inside a house, not exposed to public eye or public gaze – Charge framed by trial
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order misdirected itself in its approach and reasoning to reverse the judgment of Single Judge for all the stated facts, reasons and circumstances, the non-acceptance of the case of the appellant post of Society Manager. Headnotes† Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Appellant having experience 28 years of working in the Society, came to be appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak vide order dated 02.09.1987, on permanent basis – He had passed the Higher Secondary
Issue for Consideration What would be the relevant date for computation of the period of limitation, whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – High Court quashed the FIR on the ground of limitation holding that the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is relevant and as cognizance was taken after a period of one year, the bar of limitation u/s.468
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping in view the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955. Headnotes† State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 – rr.22(i)(c), 22(i)(a), 20, 7 – upon r.22(i)(c) to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits, whereas the respondent(s) contended by placing reliance on r.22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and is, therefore, not entitled to pension – Whether the appellant is entitled for
Issue for Consideration (i) What is contended by the appellant is that punishment imposed u/s.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the appellant would take care of the punishment for the conviction u/s.25 and s.29 of the Act, which according to the appellant, are only Given the legislative mandate, whether the said contention has to be negatived; (ii) Whether the fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the two co-accused and declining the similar relief to the remaining accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, of FIR – Complaint regarding assault and criminal intimidation – FIR lodged u/ss.143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, and 427 IPC – Quashing of proceedings sought – High Court quashed proceedings against two co-accused but denied similar relief to the appellants –
Issue for Consideration The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the allegations and the prima facie material relating to the award and execution of public works contracts, including the asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and official documentation, and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a direction by this Court for an independent investigation by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so, the scope of such investigation and the
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the order of the Single Judge by way of which the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of respondent wherein he had challenged the rejection of his candidature by the screening post of constable (driver) in the police force on the ground that he had criminal antecedents. Headnotes† Service Law – Recruitment in Police Force – M.P. Police Regulations – Rejection of candidature by screening committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver)
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant-P based solely on circumstantial evidence as convicted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court could be sustained in law. Whether the incriminating evidence are proved by cogent and admissible evidence, forming an unbroken towards the guilt of the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34, 201 – Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.103(1)/3(5) – Circumstantial evidence – Recoveries – Appellant-P along with one L, committed murder of wife of L –
Issue for Consideration Whether the NCDRC was right in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants on the premise that they do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ for leasing out the subject property for commercial purposes, falling within the exclusion clause of Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – The respondents launched a group housing project – The appellants in March 2005, deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as the booking amount, and, on 02.09.2005, they were allotted a Unit – The
Issue for Consideration Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence u/Art.227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to the subject matter – present appeal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII R.11, Or.VI R.16 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court – What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-original plaintiff, is the
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to dispute as regards the sharing of the waters of the Pennaiyar River between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka. Headnotes† Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 – ss.3, 4 – Inter- State River Pennaiyar – of the Pennaiyar River and arising from the alleged construction of a check dam/diversion by the State of Karnataka-defendant-State on the said river, impeding the free flow of water, thereby depriving the State of Tamil Nadu-plaintiff-State of the benefits of the river waters flowing through