Issue for Consideration Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the employment of the appellant on the ground of furnishing false information as regards his criminal antecedents, in the given facts and circumstances, was permissible Termination from service on ground of suppression or supply of false information – When not justified – Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the employment of the appellant on the ground of furnishing false information as regards his criminal antecedents was
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Whether the Respondents, who admittedly traded (sold) their shareholding in Tara Jewels Limited while in possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information, could escape the charge of insider trading under Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations, that the purpose of the sale was a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 High Court was justified in declining to examine, at the threshold, the effect of the official service certificate establishing the appellant’s absence from the place of occurrence; whether the acquittal of the co-accused appellant’s parents, on an arising from the very same F.I.R., has a material bearing on the continuation of proceedings against the appellant; and whether, on a cumulative reading of the record, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, warranting
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 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 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 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 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 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