Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether the disciplinary action taken against respondent No.1, culminating in his removal from service, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Respondent under the name “SK” with Bihar Police while continuing in service as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police under the name “RK” through fabricated documents and thereafter remained unauthorisedly absent from service – Memorandum of charge issued in view of the
Issue for Consideration Whether there existed any fiduciary relationship between the Respondent-Plaintiff and ‘KR’ so as to exempt the transaction in question from the rigour of the Benami law; whether the suit schedule properties are liable to confiscation u/s.27 of the Prohibition a bar u/s.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 since ‘KR’ was allegedly murdered by the Respondent; whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court whereby it had allowed the application filed by
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction u/s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden was duly discharged in the present case; whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constituted a mere reconstitution of partnership or
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether there is a valid undertaking by way of a guarantee executed by Defendant No.1 and whether Defendant No.1 can absolve from its liability; (ii) Whether the reasons adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court Court. Headnotes† Contract Act, 1872 – ss.126, 127, 128, 137, 138, 140, 141 – Plaintiff-Goltens Dubai carried out extensive repair works on the vessel Master Panos at request of the owner – Defendant No.1 had entered into a Charter Party Agreement dated 09.03.1998 with
Issue for Consideration The present writ petition has been filed by the Mizo Chief Council, through its President, on behalf of the tribal chieftains. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents seized/acquired the lands of these chieftains The following questions fall for consideration: (i) Whether the writ petition is hit by delay and laches; (ii) Whether any fundamental rights of the Mizo Chiefs were violated. Headnotes† Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief’s Rights) Act, 1954 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004 can have any overriding or superseding effect over the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993, which expressly lays down the criteria for exclusion from the benefit of reservation for Other Backward Classes the creamy layer namely, the socially advanced persons of sections among the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes; whether there can be hostile discrimination between employees of the Government and those working in Public or Private Sector Undertakings, when both occupy posts of the
Issue for Consideration In the absence of any subsisting statutory control or saving provision operative on the date of the alleged incident, whether the prosecution of the appellants under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is legally tenable. Headnotes† Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Order 1989 – Cement Control Order, 1967 – Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 – The prosecution case is that the Public Works Department of the State Government had awarded the work of construction of a Khar passage in cement concrete – As per the
Issue for Consideration Interlocutory application was filed seeking direction as regards the appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for comprehensive and scientific analysis of direction to the Ministry of Education to extend all necessary administrative support, infrastructure, data access, and to provide appropriate remuneration/honorarium to Dr. Anant, as per prevalent norms or as may be fixed by the Court. Headnotes† Interlocutory Application –
Issue for Consideration Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee formed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2025 to address the community. Headnotes† Appointment of a member of the Advisory Committee – Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member to the Advisory Committee formed by
Issue for Consideration If an arbitral tribunal - appointed by the High Court or by the parties concerned – does not complete proceedings within the required or extended time limit, can an application to extend time u/s.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed before Civil Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.29A, 11(6), 2(1)(e) – The present dispute arose out of Memorandum of Family Settlement (MFS) dated 11.01.2021 executed between the parties herein, who all form part of the ‘Chowgule’ family –
Issue for Consideration The disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutions across the country and the necessity to understand the underlying causes contributing to distress amongst students. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 the recommendations of the National Task Force – Directions issued: Held: (i) The Sample Registration System data on Suicides, especially those falling within the age group of 15-29 years, must be centrally maintained for better and more accurate estimates of Deaths by Suicide of students
Issue for Consideration Whether the possession of the schedule property by the appellant herein was continued in the capacity of a tenant or as a vendee on the execution of the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2009. Whether the appellant herein is liable to pay any additional duty and penalty on the the said instrument liable to be impounded for the purpose of payment of duty and penalty. Whether there is “deemed conveyance” within the meaning of Explanation I to Article 47A of the A.P. Stamp Act. Headnotes† Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the credibility of the dying declaration of the wife, and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent-husband by extending to him the benefit of doubt. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying case that owing to marital discord between the parties, the respondent-husband allegedly poured kerosene on his wife at their residence and set her on fire – Some villagers rushed to her rescue and the respondent also attempted to extinguish the fire – Wife was rushed to the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the NCLAT was correct in admitting Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; and whether the NCLAT was correct in rejecting the Intervention application filed by Code, 2016 – ss.5(8)(f), 7, 7(5)(a) – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP – Locus standi to intervene in proceedings u/s.7 – Appellant-Corporate debtor availed financial assistance of Rs.70 crores from
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting bail to respondent no. 2-accused without due consideration of the heinous nature of the acts alleged to have been committed against the minor victim-gang-rape and sexual assault threatening with deadly weapon and from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence – Commission of offence of gang-raping a minor and sexual
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards taxability of gains said to arise on amalgamation, where shares of the amalgamating company held by the assessees as stock-in-trade, stand substituted by shares of the amalgamated company; whether of itself, constitutes a realisation giving rise to taxable business income u/s.28, Income Tax Act, 1961 and if so, the conditions under which such accrual or receipt can be said to arise in the commercial sense, or whether the incidence of taxation arises only upon the subsequent sale of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be applied to the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the provisions of
Issue for Consideration Whether the MM Plant unit set up by Indo Flogates could be termed as a new industrial unit in accordance with the terms of industrial policy of 1989; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the affirmative then, whether the respondents were justified in rejecting subsidy and DG Set subsidy respectively for the MM Plant unit on the ground that both Indo Flogates and the appellant company had already exhausted the overall subsidy limit under the previous industrial policies; whether the respondents are estopped from refusing to disburse the capital
Issue for Consideration Whether the subject goods in question should be classified as ‘parts’ of machines or mechanical appliances of Chapter 84 under CTI 84369900 or as aluminium structures of Chapter 76 under CTI 76109010. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Customs Tariff Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the aluminium shelves imported by the respondent should be classified under Customs Tariff Item 84369900, as ‘parts’ of agricultural machinery, as opposed to Customs Tariff Item 76109010, as aluminium structures – The respondent has
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions by not applying s.4 of the Repealing Act and thereby not granting relief to the appellants; was the delivery of notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors of a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of which would render abatement of the proceedings in terms of s.4 of the Repealing Act; and that despite the recording of lands in the name of the State Government, if actual possession was not subsequently transferred to the Government, would this render the