Issue for Consideration Whether, in the facts and circumstances, there could be any breach or violation of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 where, as contended by the appellants: (i) the actions complained about did not result in any loss or harm to the investing public; of the Appellants resulted in gain to the investors; (iii) all three sets of Appellants acted bona fide in the interest of investors and did not make any monetary benefit or gain; (iv) had the Appellants taken steps as postulated by SEBI, there would have been a substantial monetary loss and harm
Issue for Consideration Whether an insolvency notice u/s.9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal; whether a “decree or order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act). Headnotes† Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2) – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – s.19(22A) – One ‘BDL’ availed credit facilities from a consortium of 15 banks, including the Appellant-Bank –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens. Headnotes† Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Constitution of India – Art.226 – BSF Act – 1969 – r.22 – Doctrine of forum non conveniens, misapplication in the context of writ jurisdiction – When – Appellant-BSF Constable had contracted a second marriage without permission of the competent authority, during the subsistence of his first marriage – Dismissed
Issue for Consideration Issue arose that where an appeal u/s.62 IBC is filed within time, i.e., 45 (forty-five) days or beyond the said period but before expiry of 60 (sixty) days as contemplated in the sub-sections thereof and are marked defective, for this Court can condone the delay in refiling of the appeal when the defects pointed out are not cured within 28 (twenty-eight) days. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.62 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord.VIII r.6 Sub-rules (3) and (4) – Condonation
Issue for Consideration The specific issues which arise for determination are: (i) Whether the activities provided u/s.11(g) and (h) of the Railways Act pass muster of “distribution” of electricity, and whether such activities are a necessary pre-requisite to the Act; (ii) Whether the Indian Railways, being an entity of the Central Government, falls within the ambit of “Appropriate Government” u/s.14 of the Electricity Act, 2003; (iii) Whether the Indian Railways, even if held to be a DDL under the Act, is exempt from the obligation to
Issue for Consideration Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, connived with two others (one officer and a gunman) to misappropriate money of the customers for their personal gain, stealing bank records, etc. – The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the co- delinquent gunman while the co-delinquent officer
Issue for Consideration Impugned order challenged by the appellant-convict contending that as he was not made aware of absence of the counsel engaged by him to prosecute the appeal before the Division Bench and as the Division Bench proceeded to appoint the amicus without his knowledge, he may be which he had raised in the memorandum of appeal that was filed in the High Court to secure an order of setting aside the conviction u/s.304 Part II, IPC and the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to allow the appeal by recording an acquittal. Headnotes† Legal Aid –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service, based on its consideration of only a sole point raised on behalf of the first respondent with the other points raised. Headnotes† Judgment/Order – Several issues raised, matter decided considering a solitary point without dealing with other points – Impermissibility – School Tribunal set aside the order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant from
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the applications for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition and condonation of delay in re-filing the same. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of delay of the School filed application for release of grant-in-aid – Tribunal allowed the application by directing the State and the Director to release grant-in-aid in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school – State filed appeal which was time-barred as also not
Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the assessment of the income of the victim and the denial of any amount towards future prospects; and the grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation of victim and grant of future prospects – Fatal road accident – Victim aged about 37 years died instantly when his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry insured with the respondent-insurance company, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner – Claimants (the widow of the
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 Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellants sustaining the objections raised by the Registry of the High Court as to why multiple reliefs were claimed in a single prayer; why a particular party was joined as – Cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary – Writ petition filed by appellants-borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 alleging that the advocate appointed as
Issue for Consideration Whether s.17-A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17-A – Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made public servant in discharge of official functions or duties – Benefit of s.17-A, not applicable to cases of demand of illegal gratification – Petitioners were sought to be prosecuted for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 7A – High Court held that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of
Issue for Consideration Whether the State police or a Special Agency of the State has jurisdiction to investigate the offences of bribery and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the Central Government employees. Headnotes† Prevention – s.17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.4(2) r/w s.156 – Petitioners were sought to be prosecuted for offence punishable u/ss.7 and 7A – High Court held that if any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is committed by an employee of the Central
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the justification of the shifting of reserve category candidates who has not availed any concession or relaxation towards the list of unreserved category candidates; and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court directing that the to the vacancy that had been kept vacant by the Single Judge’s order. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment/selection – Shifting of reserve category candidates who has not availed any concession or relaxation towards the list of unreserved category candidates –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024; and whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy degrees, without in Pharmacy, satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the said Rules. Headnotes† Pharmacy Act, 1948 – Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 – Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar
Issue for Consideration Does the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House motion by the Presiding Officer of the other House; whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion; what is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman’s refusal
Issue for Consideration A set of cases where, the FIRs registered, for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been quashed, which left the investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in proceedings stood terminated. The High Court has undertaken the said exercise, solely on the issue of jurisdiction of the police station which registered the FIRs. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.2(s) – Bharatiya