Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the concurrent finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts below; and the enhancement of compensation on the ground that the future earning potential of the deceased was not adequately assessed under the conventional heads was not fully granted. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.166 and 140 – Enhancement of the compensation – Victim, aged 20 years pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final), and undergoing articleship, was travelling in the car driven by
Issue for Consideration Appellant herein met with an accident, his right leg above the knee was amputated. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs.10,84,330/- to Rs.23,86,320/-. Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant requires modification and of earning capacity suffered by the appellant deserves to be computed by treating the functional disability at 100%. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Enhancement of compensation – The appellant was proceeding on his bicycle when a lorry coming from behind,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the amended provision of ss.166 and 167 of the Abolition Act, brought into w.e.f. 03.06.1981, could retrospectively operate upon the sale deed of 1957 so as to render the transfer void and vest the subject land whether the Consolidation Authorities were competent to disregard the registered sale deed while adjudicating title under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; and whether the Consolidation Authorities and the High Court were justified in doubting the genuineness and due
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the appellant/ plaintiff failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract and whether the delayed filing of the suit for specific performance undermines such readiness Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – The appellant/original plaintiff and the respondent/original defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 20.12.1990 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- for a vacant site – An amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the appellant as earnest money and
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reversing the decree for mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment in favour of the plaintiff passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the first Appellate Court and, undertaking an exercise to of the plaintiff in monetary terms without any prayer being made in that regard. Headnotes† Relief – Not prayed for – Grant of – Impermissibility – Original plaintiff filed suits against the respondents-original defendants seeking mandatory injunction for
Issue for Consideration Whether the right to walk is a Fundamental Right; whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Art.21 on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, a fundamental right: Held: The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution – It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(d), r/w Art.19(1)(a), Art.19(1) (b), Art.19(1) (c) and Art.21 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Special Police Establishment-SPE as constituted u/s.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 for investigating offences specified by the State Government u/s.3 of the Act of 1947 entitled to exemption from Act of 2005 by virtue of s.24(4) thereof, on the ground that it is an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation; and whether the Notification dated 25.08.2011 provides for a matter beyond the parent legislation or whether it is intra vires s.24(4) of the Act of 2005. Headnotes†
Issue for Consideration The petitioner has called in questioned the order passed by the Returning Officer on 09.06.2026, rejecting her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat in the biennial election for the Rajya Sabha seats of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Whether this Court is inclined u/Art.32 of Constitution in view of the express bar contained in Art.329(b) of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.32 and 329(b) – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.33A – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – The petitioner being a
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the dismissal order was passed by the competent authority; whether a fresh show-cause notice for punishment was required after the de novo proceedings before the labour court; whether the plea relating to subsistence whether the direction treating the suspension period as punishment is valid; and whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. Headnotes† MSEDCL Employees Services Regulations, 2005 – Dismissal from service – Appellant-Upper Division Clerk in the service of
Issue for Consideration Whether the earlier proceedings provided opportunity enough for the plaintiff by being substantially similar, to raise the point of his ownership of the suit properties by virtue of the 1960 sale deed when the main ground urged otherwise was cancellation of sale Court in terms of the impugned judgment erred in dismissing the suit as being barred by constructive res judicata. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.11 – Principle of constructive res judicata – Inapplicability, when – A portion of the property totalling
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to implementation of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Headnotes† Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss.20(1), 23, 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 – Authority conducted appellant and issued notice to him u/s.20(1), calling upon him to offer an explanation – Pursuant thereto, the appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee, and it was concluded that prima facie material existed in so far as the violations under PCPNDT were concerned – Suspension
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by respondent no.1 that were caused due to the falling of a roadside tree on the vehicle by which the respondent no.1 was under the tree waiting for the rain to subside and then proceed further. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Claim petition – Falling of a tree on an auto, if would qualify as an accident for which claim can be filed – Respondent was traveling
Issue for Consideration Whether amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing- cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, which mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, Haryana and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED) while taking decisions relating to appointments, is mandatory in nature or merely directory; whether the recruitment and appointments made pursuant to the resolution dated 13.08.2014 were in contravention of the mandatory requirements prescribed u/r.3 and
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the monetisation/quantification of a homemaker’s efforts/ contribution in cases of motor accidents claims involving the death of a homemaker; inordinate delay in disposal of motor accident claims and the need for Claims – Death of a homemaker – Compensation – Loss of Domestic Care, an additional head – Role of homemaker as a nation builder and economic entity; recognition of multitudes of facets – Discussed: Held: When a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the power and jurisdiction of the High Court to issue the directions that trial court while trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act to examine the sanctioning authority exercising powers u/s.311 CrPC before framing is no challenge to the same by the accused. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power and jurisdiction of the High Court – Writ Petition sought quashing of the sanction for prosecution granted by the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens. Headnotes† Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Constitution of India – Art.226 – BSF Act – 1969 – r.22 – Doctrine of forum non conveniens, misapplication in the context of writ jurisdiction – When – Appellant-BSF Constable had contracted a second marriage without permission of the competent authority, during the subsistence of his first marriage – Dismissed
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of the criminal complaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.136, 226, 14 – Inordinate delay in the investigation of the criminal complaint – Complaint by appellants-original complainant, in the year 2007, before the Judicial Magistrate against respondents 1 to 4 u/ss.120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 IPC alleging that while he was away on Haj pilgrimage, the accused persons forged his signatures and prepared bogus partition deed and fake sale
Issue for Consideration Whether the consumer complaint filed by the appellant could have been referred to arbitration without adjudication on merits; whether the National Commission was justified in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the appellant was not a Act, 1986 – s.12(4), 3 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of consumer forum – Appellant filed Consumer Complaint against respondent- Society, alleging deficiency in service on
Issue for Consideration Whether the limitation u/s.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would commence from the date of the original award or from the date on which the application u/s.33 came to be disposed of. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, Act, 1956 – ss.3A(1), 3G(1) – Acquisition of land by the Central Government – The Competent Authority determined the compensation – Appellant invoked Arbitration u/s.3G(1) – The Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of ss.23(1- A), 23(2),
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the denial of allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant-married daughter in her capacity as a dependent, since the appellant is a married daughter and not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of (IV)10 of the G.O. Headnotes† Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Appointment of fair price shop under dependent quota after death of dealer