Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Children’s Court against the appellant-minor at the time of commission of offence, and affirmed by the High Court, can be sustained in the absence of an order u/s.19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and (Care and Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.19(1), 18(3), 15, 2(13), 2(20) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Powers of Children’s Court – Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law – FIR against
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether under the power of s.483 of BNSS 2023, the Court could have issued directions to the trial court to issue summons u/ss.62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures as against those persons who delay or impede proceedings. Headnotes† Bharatiya Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – High Court while exercising bail jurisdiction, undertaking exercise of issuing directions – Power of – High Court dismissed the second bail application in a case u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and directed
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 Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal filed by the defendants, whereby the judgment passed by the first appellate court was upheld and the decree of the specific performance as passed in first – Relief of – Agreement to sell between the parties – Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by the plaintiff, dismissed holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but decreed
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the execution of a compromise decree passed in a civil suit; and whether the executing court can go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it stands without making any modifications therein. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Court executing decree – Execution of a compromise decree passed in a suit – Defendant-respondent became decree holder and the plaintiff-appellant became judgment debtor – Executing Court in the execution petition modified the compromise decree by varying the
Issue for Consideration Whether part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was fixed for a contract period of eleven months or would continue to receive the same fixed honorarium for years together or for all times to come without any increment. Headnotes† Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Samagra Shiksha Scheme (subsumed the earlier Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special services vehicles or any construction equipment vehicles such as Dumpers, Loaders, Excavators, Surface Miners, Dozers, Drills, Rock Breakers etc. are “motor vehicles” within the ambit of s.2(28) of the and are liable to be taxed under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. Headnotes† Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 – s.3(1) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.2(28) – Motor Vehicles – Road Tax – Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special services
Issue for Consideration Under challenge in these appeals is the judgment and order of the High Court dated 21.02.2022 setting aside the order of the court of first instance permitting impleadment of the appellant as one of the defendants to the suit. Headnotes† Suit – charges – A suit was instituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 against respondent no.3 for the recovery of service charges – Notice was served upon sole defendant i.e., respondent no.3 but no one appeared – The Court proceeded ex-parte – Thereafter, the appellant filed an