Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the activity undertaken by the Assessee at its warehouse, the grouping and, to whatever extent, the fitting together of imported modules into Xerox Photocopier machines to meet a customer’s need, amounts to “manufacture” within of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Note 6 to s.XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.2(f) – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Note 6 to s.XVI of the First Schedule – Grouping and, fitting
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a suit where the evidence of the parties stood closed and final arguments of the defendant’s side had already concluded, the Trial Court (and the High Court, in modifying the Trial Court’s orders) could permissibly exercise power u/Or.XVIII r.17 CPC r.14 CPC) to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence, recall PW-1, and receive fresh documents and further, whether such recall could be extended to permit cross-examination of the recalled witness. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XVIII, r.17 – The appeals arose from
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reversing the decree for mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment in favour of the plaintiff passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the first Appellate Court and, undertaking an exercise to of the plaintiff in monetary terms without any prayer being made in that regard. Headnotes† Relief – Not prayed for – Grant of – Impermissibility – Original plaintiff filed suits against the respondents-original defendants seeking mandatory injunction for
Issue for Consideration Whether the Decree in question is a simple Preliminary Decree, or whether the Trial Court, made it both a Preliminary and a Final Decree; whether the same could be put to Execution; whether the High Court erred in interdicting the Execution Proceedings holding that before Decree was necessary. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.2(2), Or.XX r.18, Or.XX r.12 – Preliminary decree when itself final decree – Appellant filed Suit for partition and separate possession of the Subject Flat – Preliminary Decree passed by Trial Court
Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned judgment in setting aside the order of punishment exceeded the scope of judicial review of a decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee; whether Regulation 10 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and or directory in deciding whether a common cause of action against more than one employee should be through a common or independent disciplinary proceeding. Headnotes† Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review – Scope of – Writ Petition filed by Respondent-employee
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the decree of specific performance passed by the court of first instance directing for the execution of sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration within three months would be inexecutable for the reason that the balance sale consideration Act,1963 – s.28 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XX r.12A – Specific performance – Executability of conditional decree – Non-deposit of balance sale consideration within stipulated time – Defendant-appellant entered into agreement to sell the
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is guilty of the offences u/ss.302 and 498A of IPC and whether the sentence (two years of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of the same, with a further three months of simple imprisonment u/s.498A IPC and to him is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 498A – Allegation against appellant that he poured kerosene on his wife, lit a candle and threw it upon her – Victim died due to severe burn injuries – FIR registered u/ss.302 and 498A – The
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale in favour of the Appellant was without notice; whether the sale in favour of the Appellant can be brought within the purview of pendente lite, given that the arbitral award is for the recovery the Appellant is a transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser, and is barred by Or.XXI r.102, CPC from resisting the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI r.102 – Transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser barred by Or.XXI r.102
Issue for Consideration Whether the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Tuticorin (“HWP”) are covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Headnotes† Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – s.2(e) – Retired employees of HWP employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 claimed higher gratuity benefits under the PG Act – Controlling Authority held that the provisions of the PG Act are attracted to the employees of HWP, and directed to pay the difference of
Issue for Consideration The controversy centres around the disputed circumstance, namely, the power of agency given by the plaintiff to the 1st Defendant through Exh.B-2. Whether the documentary evidence in Exh.B-2 satisfies the requirement of law and whether it is fudged with Procedure, 1908 – ss.100 and 103 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.85 – Registration Act, 1908 – s.33 – On 31.07.1998, the plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favour of the 1st defendant – The Plaintiff is the 1st Defendant’s sister – The
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the dispute regarding the custody of two minor sons born to the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. Headnotes† Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – s.25 – Custody of minors – Appellant-husband and respondent-wife, both Indian – Matrimonial dispute between them, culminating in divorce and the custody of the minors given to the wife while guardianship given to the husband by the Qatar court – Allegedly, the wife removed the minors from Qatar to India during their academic session, without the knowledge and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the conciliation proceedings and the consequential reference of the industrial dispute; whether the Conciliation officer was correct in admitting the application made u/s.12 of the Union having raised the dispute with the Management first; and whether the reference is illegal for want of a prior demand before the Management. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.12 – Contractual labour – Absorption – Appellant-Management engaged in
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether directing workers working through a registered contractor either for continuation or regularisation is completely illegal; and as regards the applicability of s.33(1) of the ID Act. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss. Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970 – s.2(1)(b) – Complaint by workmen alleging unfair labour practices and sought direction to the Management Company to pay compensation to the tune of equal amount of wages due to each of the complainant – Industrial Tribunal
Issue for Consideration Whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is a dependant upon the estate of the father- in-law, and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate. Headnotes† Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 – Chapter III, A daughter- in-law became widow after death of her father-in-law – She is dependent upon the estate of father-in-law – Whether she is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate – Whether the words “any widow of his son” would mean