Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether persons who were arrayed as respondents in the consumer complaints but ultimately against whom no notice was issued and the complaints did not proceed, could be brought within the net premise that they were directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.71 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.14(3) – Enforcement of orders of District Commission, State Commission and National Commission
Issue for Consideration Whether F.A. No. 213 of 2000 abated on non-substitution of LRs of ‘M’ i.e., appellant 1(2), who was one of the LRs of deceased- judgment debtor ‘K’; whether the order of the High Court dtd.03.05.2013, holding that appellants No. 2 and 3 along with of ‘K’ in the appeal, would, by the principle of res judicata, bar a declaration that the appeal had abated; whether by allowing impleadment of the heirs and legal representatives of ‘M’ as proforma respondents in F. A. No. 213 of 2000, vide order dtd.03.05.2013, the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting bail to respondent no. 2-accused without due consideration of the heinous nature of the acts alleged to have been committed against the minor victim-gang-rape and sexual assault threatening with deadly weapon and from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence – Commission of offence of gang-raping a minor and sexual
Issue for Consideration Whether u/s.439, CrPC the High Court could have issued directions, mandating age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involves twin considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the aspect of law of the act regarding determination of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned judgement correspond to or are in contravention of the same. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 366 – Protection of Children from
Issue for Consideration Whether cognizance of the alleged offences u/ss.448 and 451, Companies Act, 2013 could have been taken on a private complaint in view of the statutory scheme of the Companies Act and if not, whether the criminal proceedings must be quashed in respect of those sections; if offences u/ss.448 and 451, Companies Act ought to be quashed, would the criminal proceedings also have to be quashed in respect of the offences under the IPC in light of the provisions as contained in s.436(2), Companies Act; whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards taxability of gains said to arise on amalgamation, where shares of the amalgamating company held by the assessees as stock-in-trade, stand substituted by shares of the amalgamated company; whether of itself, constitutes a realisation giving rise to taxable business income u/s.28, Income Tax Act, 1961 and if so, the conditions under which such accrual or receipt can be said to arise in the commercial sense, or whether the incidence of taxation arises only upon the subsequent sale of the
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 Issue arose as to whether on mere admission in a course, right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse – Advertisement inviting application for the admitted and thereafter passed out from government institutions between 2015- 19 – Representation before the competent authority seeking appointment, however was rejected – Respondent then filed writ petition – Case of the appellant-State that earlier there were only 20 seats
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
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the criminal case arising out of FIR. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing the criminal proceedings – Family prosecution – Complaint by appellant alleging that respondents by abusing advanced age and medical vulnerability of the executants, caused execution and registration of settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, used the documents as genuine for deriving proprietary benefits,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special services vehicles or any construction equipment vehicles such as Dumpers, Loaders, Excavators, Surface Miners, Dozers, Drills, Rock Breakers etc. are “motor vehicles” within the ambit of s.2(28) of the and are liable to be taxed under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. Headnotes† Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 – s.3(1) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.2(28) – Motor Vehicles – Road Tax – Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special services
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order of preventive detention passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the High Court u/s.3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 valid in law. Headnotes† Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- Leggers, Immoral Traffic Offenders, [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms
Issue for Consideration a) Whether the High Court was right in quashing Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 and the consequential summoning order dated 06.03.2019 against respondent nos.1 and 2 herein arising out of the dishonour of the firm’s cheque Nos.057140 and 057141, on the ground that same underlying liability for which another complaint i.e., Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019 had already been instituted and whether the same would not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of s.482 of the Cr.PC; and b) Whether the High Court
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be applied to the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the provisions of
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 Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby resulting in automatic vacation in terms of r.9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.21, 9(2) – Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 – r.9 – “Commencement of arbitral proceedings”
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the accused added during trial u/s.319 CrPC, entitled to bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty – FIR registered against nine accused persons, persons, whereas the closure report filed as regards the remaining six co-accused – On basis of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, application u/s.319 filed by the first informant before the trial court seeking that the six co-accused dropped by the police to be added and
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court in exercise of powers u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was justified to interfere with the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court passed u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Major Port Trust Act, 1963 – The respondent-Tuticorin Port Trust undertook a major dredging project and issued Notice Inviting Tender – The appellant-Dredging India was one of the
Issue for Consideration Whether present is a case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the respondent-delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry or they be permitted to continue. Headnotes† Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis Criminal proceedings when cannot be quashed on the exoneration of the delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry – Respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor – Contractor complained to the Anti-Corruption
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the interpretation of Clause 2.2 of Deed of Undertaking executed between SREI-original creditor, which subsequently assigned all its rights and interests in favour of the appellant; ESL-borrower; and ECL-erstwhile promoter of ESL and obligor in and whether Clause 2.2 constitutes a contract of guarantee within the meaning of s.126 of the Contract Act, 1872 thereby rendering ECL as a guarantor to SREI in respect of financial facilities availed by ESL from SREI. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 –