Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-State was justified in law in classifying the present appellants, who were engaged on an academic arrangement basis under the impugned SRO No. 384 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) class u/s.3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and thereby excluding them from the benefit of regularisation contemplated under the said enactment. Headnotes† Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – ss.3(b), 5(v)
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting the relief of quashing solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general in nature, while declining the same relief to the appellants-parents-in-laws. Headnotes† Code of s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, 498A and 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3 and 4 – Dowry case against in-laws – Quashing of criminal proceedings – FIR by complainant-wife against her husband, parents-in-law-appellants, and sister-in-law
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted for the proposed unit when the land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur treated the site as falling in rural agricultural zone; whether “approval” recorded in Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act; whether the siting norms and environmental
Issue for Consideration Whether the belated prayer of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2026, being the successors-in-interest of ‘NP’, to gain membership in the Society by making payment at a highly belated stage, could have been accepted by the Joint Registrar. – ‘NP’- Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was in occupation of Flat No.7 in the building in the Co-operative Housing Society (Society-respondent No.7) as a tenant thereof – Dispute inter se parties pertains to Flat No.7 and the claim of the appellants for grant
Issue for Consideration The instant appeal is directed against the interim order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the High Court wherein it directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent no.1 (the writ petitioner) and permit him to participate in the election to the office of Zila – Art.243-O – Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 – The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a revised notification resuming the Panchayat elections in the State – Pursuant thereto, respondent no.1 submitted his nomination for election to the post of Zila
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to dispute as regards the sharing of the waters of the Pennaiyar River between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka. Headnotes† Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 – ss.3, 4 – Inter- State River Pennaiyar – of the Pennaiyar River and arising from the alleged construction of a check dam/diversion by the State of Karnataka-defendant-State on the said river, impeding the free flow of water, thereby depriving the State of Tamil Nadu-plaintiff-State of the benefits of the river waters flowing through
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legality in the appointment process of the appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the Puducherry Technological University. Headnotes† Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 – s.14(5) Commission Act, 1956 – UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 – Regn 7.3 – Appointment of appellant as Vice-Chancellor of
Issue for Consideration Whether the revisional Court as well as the High Court erred in remanding the Appellants-accused to police custody despite an existing bail order in their favour which was not challenged. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.187 – bail order – Impermissibility – Appellants-accused were arrested in connection with an FIR registered u/s.67, IT Act, 2000 and ss.352 and 353(2), BNS, 2023 – Bail granted – Revision petition filed by the respondent-State aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate
Issue for Consideration Whether the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial Court as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection of the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by the appellant; whether the issue of readiness and willingness was the appellant and in favour of the defendant-respondent; whether the High Court committed grave error in the facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to contempt petitions by the appellant-petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 willfully failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development whereby the respondent was called to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- , being the cost of the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. Headnotes† Contempt of court – Contempt petitions – Contempt petitions by the appellant-petitioner alleging, that respondent