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 arose whether the Revenue Officer could have reviewed the earlier order of the Revenue Officer; whether the respondent- company had fulfilled the conditions to be entitled to retain the lands u/s.6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953; and whether it was farming” as on 1st January 1952 to claim exemption from vesting under the 1971 determination. Headnotes† West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – ss.6(1), 6(1)(j) – West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – ss.57, 14T(3) – Power of review by Revenue
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the National Commission was justified in awarding a compensation of ₹2 crores to the respondent-model for a faulty haircut she took at the beauty salon in the appellant’s Hotel. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency the beauty salon in the appellant’s hotel for haircut – Dissatisfied with the services rendered, she filed complaint before National Commission – Commission awarded a compensation of ₹2 crores to the respondent holding the appellant guilty of the deficiency in service and
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 In the instant case, this Court is concerned with the decision-making process adopted by the Special Court. Instead filed u/s.8(7) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and awaiting the adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal u/s.26 of the PMLA, the Special Court has allowed the said application. Headnotes† Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.8(7) and s.8(8):
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 Interlocutory application was filed seeking direction as regards the appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for comprehensive and scientific analysis of direction to the Ministry of Education to extend all necessary administrative support, infrastructure, data access, and to provide appropriate remuneration/honorarium to Dr. Anant, as per prevalent norms or as may be fixed by the Court. Headnotes† Interlocutory Application –
Issue for Consideration Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee formed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2025 to address the community. Headnotes† Appointment of a member of the Advisory Committee – Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member to the Advisory Committee formed by
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 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 Issue pertains to grant of bail to the appellant for commission of offence punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act r/w s.135 of the Customs Act; and the right of the accused to free legal aid counsel. Headnotes† Narcotic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 – Customs Act, 1962 – s.135 – Bail – Grant of – Case registered against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act r/w
Issue for Consideration Whether part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was fixed for a contract period of eleven months or would continue to receive the same fixed honorarium for years together or for all times to come without any increment. Headnotes† Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Samagra Shiksha Scheme (subsumed the earlier Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) –
Issue for Consideration Whether the NCDRC was right in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants on the premise that they do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ for leasing out the subject property for commercial purposes, falling within the exclusion clause of Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – The respondents launched a group housing project – The appellants in March 2005, deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as the booking amount, and, on 02.09.2005, they were allotted a Unit – The
Issue for Consideration Whether after submitting a final report u/s.173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (s.193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation u/s.173(8) of CrPC (s.193(9) of BNSS) of the Magistrate/ Court concerned. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(2), s.173(8) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.193(3), s.193(9) – An FIR was registered against seven accused persons including appellants for the offence
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant herein should be allowed to change his cadre from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, against the ‘insider’ vacancy. The selection pertains to the year 2004. The appellant is already in service in Tamil Nadu for more than two decades. of cadre – The first two candidates chose not to join the Rajasthan cadre, offerred on the basis of ‘insider’ vacancy, the appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment against the same – He filed OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed – The High
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 Whether the High Court was justified in saying that the proceedings held by the Arbitral Tribunal on the seven relevant dates, i.e., from 17.03.2022 to 25.08.2022 were liable to be declared as nullity on the premise that those proceedings were undertaken during u/s.14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11, s.15(2), s.15(3), s.17 and s.37 – The appellants and respondent (now under liquidation) entered into a partnership firm to develop and construct an SRA project
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether dispute with regard to the existence and validity of Clause 23 of the Contract Agreement clause could have been raised before the arbitrator; that the appointment of the arbitrator was during SBP & Co’s case regime amendments which came into effect from 23.10.2015, were the courts below justified in setting aside the award by holding that the clause 23 of the contract was not an arbitration agreement. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Appointment of
Issue for Consideration Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence u/Art.227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to the subject matter – present appeal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII R.11, Or.VI R.16 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court – What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-original plaintiff, is the
Issue for Consideration Whether a Court can entertain an application u/s.29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) for making the award even after an ‘award’ is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of eighteen- Act, 1996 – s.29A, 29A(5) – Disputes between the parties, sole arbitrator appointed – Pleadings were completed on 20.08.2022 which was the commencement of the period of twelve months provided u/s.29A(1) for making the Award – Before the conclusion of twelve