Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the monetisation/quantification of a homemaker’s efforts/ contribution in cases of motor accidents claims involving the death of a homemaker; inordinate delay in disposal of motor accident claims and the need for Claims – Death of a homemaker – Compensation – Loss of Domestic Care, an additional head – Role of homemaker as a nation builder and economic entity; recognition of multitudes of facets – Discussed: Held: When a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of the criminal complaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.136, 226, 14 – Inordinate delay in the investigation of the criminal complaint – Complaint by appellants-original complainant, in the year 2007, before the Judicial Magistrate against respondents 1 to 4 u/ss.120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 IPC alleging that while he was away on Haj pilgrimage, the accused persons forged his signatures and prepared bogus partition deed and fake sale
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning s.37 of the NDPS Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Offences to be cognizable and and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent – Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail –
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-husband was subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of law and; whether the marital bond between the parties has ruptured to such an extent that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, rendering any reconciliation impossible and u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’; ‘desertion’ – Dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers u/Art.142, on the ground
Issue for Consideration Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not. Headnotes† CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 labourer, if entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization – Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning
Issue for Consideration Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words,
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 Issues arose whether the second application u/Ord.VII r.11 is barred by the principle of Res judicata; whether s.6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act operates as a bar to the institution of a suit, warranting rejection of the plaint u/Ord.VII r.11(d); and whether the the H.S. Act that is independent of the 2005 Amendment and unaffected by s.6(5). Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11(a), (b) & (d), ss.11, 115 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.6, 6(5), 8 – Rejection of plaint – Res judicata –
Issue for Consideration Whether the amount of money received as Mediclaim, in terms of a mediclaim policy, is deductible from an award passed by a Claims Tribunal or not. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – ss.166, 168 – Amount received as mediclaim/medical insurance not by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) – High Court by way of the impugned judgment held that the amount received by a claimant by way of his mediclaim, is not deductible when such a claimant is before the MACT seeking compensation for injuries suffered as a result of an accident –
Issue for Consideration Whether u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 under, cannot be invoked seeking directions for registration of FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available – Complainant Company filed complaints before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Office alleging forgery, impersonation and fraud by accused persons including
Issue for Consideration The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths, roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the writ petition seeking removal of of
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the manner of filling of a vacancy reserved for Person with Disability with Low Vision (PWD-LV) in the Unreserved category UR (PWD-LV), where the recruitment notification stipulated that in case of unreserved candidate in the PWD-LV category, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit. Headnotes† Service law – Reservation – Filling up of unreserved vacancies by reserved candidates – Mobility of a PWD-LV candidate from reserved
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for killing his wife by setting her on fire, ought to be upheld. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – When can be relied over her and killed her by setting her on fire – Concurrent conviction u/s.302, IPC relying upon on the dying declaration of the deceased stating that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Challenge to: Held: Dying declarations are exceptions to
Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated. Headnotes† U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of the paddy procurement centre at
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court u/s.319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by the Court below. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under a mini trial – Trial Court and High Court refused to allow the Appellant- complainant’s application to summon additional accused filed u/s.319 holding that the evidence of the complainant was inconsistent with the FIR and the documentary record, and that the statements of PW-6
Issue for Consideration Whether the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) could be treated as “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.12 – The appellants are scales of the workers were sought to be revised in accordance with the Sixth Pay Commission of the Government of India – Writ petitions – High Court held that that the Air Force Group Insurance Society could not be treated as “State” or “other authority” within
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment of High Court wherein it dismissed the accused’s appeal against the order of the Special Judge whereby his prayer for discharge u/s.227 CrPC was allowed in part arising out of proceedings wherein charges were IPC and s.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge under – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) – Altercation and scuffle in a gathering
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court exercised its power with restraint and precision by granting limited relief to the Appellant (D2) and whether it was justified in affirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court entitling plaintiff to 5/16th share. Headnotes† – The suit for partition being O.S. No. 99 of 1987 was instituted by plaintiff-Dy, seeking partition and possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties – The case was founded on the premise that the suit properties constituted joint Hindu family properties
Issue for Consideration The appellants have preferred the present appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Trial Court and appellants for committing the offences punishable u/ss.302, 120-B, 201, 506 r/w. s.34 of the IPC. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, whether the Appellate Court should disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
Issue for Consideration Whether u/s.439, CrPC the High Court could have issued directions, mandating age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involves twin considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the aspect of law of the act regarding determination of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned judgement correspond to or are in contravention of the same. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 366 – Protection of Children from