Issue for Consideration Whether the Single Judge rightly enforced the appellants’ duty under s.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by directing inter alia that he be reinstated in service with all consequential Bench was grossly wrong in not reversing such directions. Headnotes† Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – s.47 – Respondent- Constable (Driver) in CRPF, was medically invalidated from service on account of
Issue for Consideration Whether, in the facts and circumstances, there could be any breach or violation of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 where, as contended by the appellants: (i) the actions complained about did not result in any loss or harm to the investing public; of the Appellants resulted in gain to the investors; (iii) all three sets of Appellants acted bona fide in the interest of investors and did not make any monetary benefit or gain; (iv) had the Appellants taken steps as postulated by SEBI, there would have been a substantial monetary loss and harm
88 : 2026 INSC 678 State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s Jai Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No(s). 3145-3146 of 2012) 13 July 2026 [Surya Kant, CJI and V. Mohana,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the amount of security deposit given by the Respondent- contractor will carry interest Rules, 1964 – An auction notice was given for the extraction of Yamuna sand from Bega Murthal Sand Zone – Respondent firm was the highest bidder – The bid was accepted by the Appellant – On 30.11.1998, a contract was executed between the parties in terms of the Form-L
Issue for Consideration Whether an insolvency notice u/s.9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal; whether a “decree or order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act). Headnotes† Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2) – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – s.19(22A) – One ‘BDL’ availed credit facilities from a consortium of 15 banks, including the Appellant-Bank –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the explanations appended to r.38 of the 2016 Rules and r.45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules ultra vires Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as well as s.9 of the MMDR Act to the extent that the levy provides for inclusion of royalty and DMF and NMET in the sale value. Headnotes† Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Explanation appended to r.38 – Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 – Explanation to r.45(8)(a) – Constitutional validity
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Children’s Court against the appellant-minor at the time of commission of offence, and affirmed by the High Court, can be sustained in the absence of an order u/s.19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and (Care and Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.19(1), 18(3), 15, 2(13), 2(20) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Powers of Children’s Court – Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law – FIR against
Issue for Consideration Does the mandatory time frame prescribed by the proviso to Or.VIII r.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a counter-claim raised by the defendant in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VIII, r.1, r.6E – Mandatory time frame – Written statement to counter-claim – By order dated 19.08.2024 in GA (COM) No.4 of 2024 in CS (COM) No.440 of 2024, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the appellants
Issue for Consideration Whether the amalgamation of Hindustan Commercial Bank- Respondent No.1 with Punjab National Bank-Respondent No.2, effected pursuant to the scheme framed under the Banking Regulation Act, of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 or not. Headnotes† Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 – s.14(1)(b) – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Effect of amalgamation on tenancy rights – s.14(1)(b), 1958 Act, if attracted – Original tenant-Hindustan Commercial Bank
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law. Headnotes† Customary laws – Customs – Proving of customs before the court – Uncle-in-law, if can adopt his niece’s It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law – High Court even though framed the issue did not answer the same simply because there were concurrent findings – Ordinarily, once a substantial
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether LMT-IT company’s prayer seeking to place on record additional documents denied by the High Court is in accordance with law. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.XI r.1(4) and and discovery of documents – Dispute pertaining to mobile application ‘app’ between the parties – Legal notice to the Bank by the IT company asking the Bank to pay Rs.4.46 cr, however claim denied – Civil suit filed before the High Court, which was later
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards enhancement of compensation in the case of five year old child paralyzed in a motor accident. Headnotes† Compensation – Motor accident matter – Enhancement of compensation – Five year old child paralyzed in a motor accident Rs.14,84,233/- as compensation, which was enhanced by an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by the High Court – Appeal seeking further enhancement: Held: Minimum wages for a skilled labourer in the year 2018 is Rs.9,560/-, which has to be enhanced with 40% for future prospects and a multiplier adopted
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the pleadings of the plaintiff were deficient and self-contradictory as to lay a proper challenge to the Will, if so, its consequence; whether non-examination of the plaintiff, or any witness of fact on its behalf, was sufficient to dismiss the suit; the execution of the Will, if so, whether those suspicious circumstances were explained, and doubts dispelled, to the satisfaction of the Court’s conscience; and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s.100 CPC in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the two
Issue for Consideration Whether a decision of a Court or adjudicating authority based on material which is fake and hallucinated is a valid decision or it amounts to subversion of the rule of law. Headnotes† Artificial Intelligence – Artificial Intelligence Hallucination – AI of adjudication – Tribunal relied on non-existent, fake and hallucinated material, generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), as if it were a precedent in support of its judgment – Correctness: Held: Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit indicating that the alleged judgments
Issue for Consideration Issue arose that for assessing the annual income of a deceased person or claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act, the ITRs for the previous year appropriate or average of the past two/three years to be Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation – Computation of annual income of the deceased victim on the basis of ITRs – Victim aged 39 years, sole breadwinner, running his own construction business, met with a road accident and succumbed to his
Issue for Consideration Whether a Magistrate must record evidence when the offence is strictly triable by the Court of Sessions as in this case, where the allegations were inter alia u/s.302 of IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.244 – In the year 2007, a between the appellant- complainant and his father on one side, with the respondents on the other – His father in the course thereof fell down and lost consciousness – Later, he died – No FIR was registered – In the year 2008, appellant-complainant sought direction
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant’s application for grant of remission to the State of Haryana will be governed by the ‘Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002’ dated 12.04.2002 or the subsequent Policy dated 13.08.2008 termed as ‘Premature Release of as notified by the Jails and Judicial Department, Government of Haryana. Headnotes† Remission – Grant of – Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002 – Premature Release of Life Convicts 2008 – The appellant stood convicted for murder of a 12 year old child,
Issue for Consideration Whether the filing of charge-sheet without additional copies as required by s.193(8) of the BNSS would entitle the appellant for the benefit of default bail. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.187(3), 193(8) – Default Bail without additional copies, does not entitle the accused for the benefit of default bail – FIR u/s.61(2) r/w ss.318, 336 and 340, BNS, 2023; s.7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.66, IT Act, 2000 for cyber fraud of Rs.3.81 crores – Appellant-accused sought default bail
Issue for Consideration Whether the compromise as accepted by the Civil Court on 22.02.1994 was in accordance with Or.XXIII r.3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or not. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXIII r.3 – The plaintiff filed a partition suit, including, present respondent, seeking 1/4th share in the total property of common ancestor – During the pendency thereof, a compromise petition was filed by the plaintiffs and defendants ‘jointly’ which was accepted by Sub-Judge-01 Muzaffarpur vide order dated 22.02.1994 – Pursuant
Issue for Consideration Challenge by the appellant to the correctness of the refusal of the High Court to quash the criminal case and the issuance of process by the Magistrate, in connection with the complaint filed against her alleging that in her electoral filing for the position of elections, she did not disclose the true extent of the property owned by herself and her spouse contrary to the rules; propriety of the cognizance order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465 – Gujarat Municipalities Act – Gujarat Municipalities
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the just and fair compensation to be awarded to the claimant-skilled carpenter in the facts of the case, the parameters and the permissible heads of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Compensation – Enhancement while travelling on his motorcycle, was hit by Jeep driven rashly and negligently, coming from the wrong side of the road – Claimant suffered serious injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg, from above the knee and became completely disabled – Tribunal awarded