Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 funds in the account – Cognizance of offences – Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint u/s.138, before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned – Correctness: Held: Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138, even
Issue for Consideration As regards admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota, the issue arose as to whether the procedure of keeping the admission process elastic after issuance of the prospectus and submission of applications by the candidates with their sports achievements would be valid – Admission to MBBS/ BDS courses through NEET-UG under sports quota during session-2024 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration midstream during the admission process – Impermissibility – Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in undergraduate
Issue for Consideration Whether the MM Plant unit set up by Indo Flogates could be termed as a new industrial unit in accordance with the terms of industrial policy of 1989; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the affirmative then, whether the respondents were justified in rejecting subsidy and DG Set subsidy respectively for the MM Plant unit on the ground that both Indo Flogates and the appellant company had already exhausted the overall subsidy limit under the previous industrial policies; whether the respondents are estopped from refusing to disburse the capital
Issue for Consideration Whether a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation while qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured more marks than cut-off of the General Category candidate in the Main Examination and Interview for personality test and secured place in the final merit candidate for cadre allocation against an unreserved vacancy. Headnotes† The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the Union Public Service Commission in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013) – rr.1, 13, 14(ii), 17(1) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant-promoter and non-executive Chairman of a group entity, entitled to bail in a money laundering case when there has been long period of incarceration and the trial has not even commenced. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act Alleged bank fraud running into several hundred crores – Entitlement to bail – FIRs registered at the instance of public sector banks alleging fraud to the extent of INR 385.35 crores and INR 289 crores respectively by the appellant-former promoter and non-executive Chairman of
Issue for Consideration Whether the subject goods in question should be classified as ‘parts’ of machines or mechanical appliances of Chapter 84 under CTI 84369900 or as aluminium structures of Chapter 76 under CTI 76109010. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Customs Tariff Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the aluminium shelves imported by the respondent should be classified under Customs Tariff Item 84369900, as ‘parts’ of agricultural machinery, as opposed to Customs Tariff Item 76109010, as aluminium structures – The respondent has
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions by not applying s.4 of the Repealing Act and thereby not granting relief to the appellants; was the delivery of notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors of a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of which would render abatement of the proceedings in terms of s.4 of the Repealing Act; and that despite the recording of lands in the name of the State Government, if actual possession was not subsequently transferred to the Government, would this render the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the consolidation of FIRs; and whether or not the offences allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants were part of the ‘same transaction’. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 218-223 – 120B IPC that accused and his accomplices, including the respondent induced large number of people to invest their monies and duped them by falsely claiming to triple money in a few days – Investigation revealed that altogether 1,852 victims cheated to the tune of ₹46.40 crores –
Issue for Consideration Whether in absence of any provision in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 for institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. In case enquiry is instituted after retirement of appellant, whether the Corporation had the jurisdiction to continue such enquiry and impose punishment, withholding the retiral benefits and direct recovery. Headnotes†
Issue for Consideration Whether the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 can be made applicable to the 2019 Advertisements after the written examination has been conducted and the provisional merit list has been published. Headnotes† Service Law Bihar Engineering Services Class - II Recruitment Rules, 2019 – The dispute in the present case is with respect to the retrospective application of an amendment to the Bihar Engineering Services Class – II Recruitment Rules, 2019, specifically the introduction of r.8(5), whereby
Issue for Consideration The authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had bid, whether it can be a reason to discard the highest bid. Headnotes† Auction – Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA)-respondent no.2 herein had advertised the an auction – On 15.03.2024, an open auction was conducted in which the reserve price of the subject plot was fixed at Rs.25,600/- per sq. mtr. – The appellant submitted a bid of Rs.29,500/- per sq. mtr., which was the highest, and was thus declared the highest bidder –
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant-Judicial Officer from service. Headnotes† Judiciary – District judiciary – Departmental on the allegation that extraneous considerations actuated passing of bail orders – Mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, not a ground to initiate departmental proceedings against Judicial Officers – Complainant lodged
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent u/s.11, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6A) – Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s.41 A&C Act application filed by the respondent seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in accordance with clause 33 of the arbitration agreement of the Leave and License Agreement, and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties – Appellant took objection that
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court by the impugned order was justified in holding that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed at the request of the State to adjudicate dispute No.1 only; was the non-issuance of a notice u/s.21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant its claim before the Arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Four packages of Road Maintenance Contract were awarded to the appellant – Appellant quantified the amounts due and submitted the same for decision by the Executive Engineer – As per the
Issue for Consideration Under challenge in these appeals is the judgment and order of the High Court dated 21.02.2022 setting aside the order of the court of first instance permitting impleadment of the appellant as one of the defendants to the suit. Headnotes† Suit – charges – A suit was instituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 against respondent no.3 for the recovery of service charges – Notice was served upon sole defendant i.e., respondent no.3 but no one appeared – The Court proceeded ex-parte – Thereafter, the appellant filed an
Issue for Consideration i) Whether the sole arbitrator could be said to have become “ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator” by virtue of sub-section (5) of s.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; ii) whether the parties could be said to have waived (5) of s.12 of the Act, 1996, by way of their conduct, either expressed or implied; iii) whether the appellants could have raised an objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator for the first time in an application u/s.34 of the Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to accused-appellants in relation to arrests made pursuant to Delhi Riots, 2020, considering the prolonged incarceration, and the constitutional plea u/Art.21 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – s.43D(5) – Delhi Riots, 2020 – Bail sought by accused-appellants considering the prolonged incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21 – Prosecution case that the appellants conspired to orchestrate and execute the 2020 Delhi Riots as a form of protest against
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
Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment dated 28 June 2019, the High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought by the appellant, Adani Power Limited, which had inter alia prayed for a declaration that no customs duty was leviable on electrical energy generated in its power plant located supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), and for consequential refund of amounts deposited towards such duty. The High Court took the view that its earlier judgment delivered in 2015 in favour of the appellant was confined to a particular notification and period, and could not be extended to