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 –
311 : 2026 INSC 495 B. Yerraji & Ors. A1: B. Yerraji A2: J. Appa Rao A3: N. Srinivasa Rao A4: Ch. Sriramulu A5: S. Kanakaraju A6: M. Yellaji Rao A7: N. Thatarao A8: S. Appayamma A9: D. Venkata Rathnam A10: G. Appalaraju A11: G. Appala Raju A12: B. Kanaka Raju A13: N. Appa Rao A14: M. Gandhi Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the appellant-Grade-IV employees who had not been granted the / benefit of minimum of the regular scale after being in service for a long number of years despite having an Order in their favour; whether in the absence
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted of the charge u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof – on inter alia the ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4; recovery of a blood-stained axe and clothes pursuant to disclosure u/s.27; and recovery of the driving licence of the appellant from the spot – Interference with: Held: The ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4 does not
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 for consideration whether r.6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules mandates that the State Eligibility Test-SET qualification must be in the concerned subject only for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers-HSST or in any subject so, whether the appellant satisfies the said requirement or qualifies for exemption u/r.10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules. Headnotes† Kerala Education Rules – Chapter XXXII, r.6(2)(24)(iii) – Interpretation – Essential qualifications for appointment as Higher Secondary
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld by the High Court. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of documents – Appellant-court duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that the appellant had approached him and received some tablets but he did not remember the date of treatment –
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.