Issue for Consideration Whether the turnkey contracts entered into by the respondent- assessee with various banks for the supply, installation and commissioning of ATMs constitute indivisible composite contracts which, during the relevant period, were incapable of purpose of levying service tax under the taxable category of “commissioning or installation” under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994; whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that no part of the composite consideration received by the respondent- assessee under the aforesaid
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the lack of compliance of s.146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which requires all vehicles to have a valid insurance policy covering third-parties; whether there should be a uniform motor-vehicle policy structure covering all occupants of to the statutorily mandated coverage of third- party risks; whether the High Court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-claimants holding that the policy in question was a comprehensive policy and would cover the owner of the vehicle as well, who was travelling in the car as a
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 petitioner has called in questioned the order passed by the Returning Officer on 09.06.2026, rejecting her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat in the biennial election for the Rajya Sabha seats of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Whether this Court is inclined u/Art.32 of Constitution in view of the express bar contained in Art.329(b) of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.32 and 329(b) – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.33A – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – The petitioner being a
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to implementation of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Headnotes† Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss.20(1), 23, 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 – Authority conducted appellant and issued notice to him u/s.20(1), calling upon him to offer an explanation – Pursuant thereto, the appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee, and it was concluded that prima facie material existed in so far as the violations under PCPNDT were concerned – Suspension
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the power and jurisdiction of the High Court to issue the directions that trial court while trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act to examine the sanctioning authority exercising powers u/s.311 CrPC before framing is no challenge to the same by the accused. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power and jurisdiction of the High Court – Writ Petition sought quashing of the sanction for prosecution granted by the
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a case of death occurring within the absolute privacy of a matrimonial home, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a homicidal hanging staged by the appellant-husband after an assault—thereby shifting facts to the husband—or whether it was a case of voluntary suicidal hanging as claimed by the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant, was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was tormented and tortured
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 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted of the charge u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof – on inter alia the ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4; recovery of a blood-stained axe and clothes pursuant to disclosure u/s.27; and recovery of the driving licence of the appellant from the spot – Interference with: Held: The ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4 does not
Issue for Consideration The principal issue which falls for consideration is with regard to the assessment of extent of disability for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity, and more particularly, the soundness of the High Court’s determination of functional disability at 30% as by the Medical Board and affirmed by the MACT. Whether the appellant-claimant is entitled to any further enhancement of compensation over and above the amount awarded by the MACT. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Enhancement of compensation – Motorcycle of appellant
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 Issue arose as regards the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court, when the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court affirming it. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 15 – Contempt jurisdiction of with the direction issued by the High Court, the appellants filed contempt petition before the High Court – However, the High Court dismissed the petition holding that once the order passed by the High Court was taken up in appeal before this Court and the Special Leave Petition was
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the criminal case arising out of FIR. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing the criminal proceedings – Family prosecution – Complaint by appellant alleging that respondents by abusing advanced age and medical vulnerability of the executants, caused execution and registration of settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, used the documents as genuine for deriving proprietary benefits,