Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning s.37 of the NDPS Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Offences to be cognizable and and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent – Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail –
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-husband was subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of law and; whether the marital bond between the parties has ruptured to such an extent that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, rendering any reconciliation impossible and u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’; ‘desertion’ – Dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers u/Art.142, on the ground
Issue for Consideration Issue arose that where an appeal u/s.62 IBC is filed within time, i.e., 45 (forty-five) days or beyond the said period but before expiry of 60 (sixty) days as contemplated in the sub-sections thereof and are marked defective, for this Court can condone the delay in refiling of the appeal when the defects pointed out are not cured within 28 (twenty-eight) days. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.62 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord.VIII r.6 Sub-rules (3) and (4) – Condonation
Issue for Consideration Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not. Headnotes† CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.10(1-B) – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 labourer, if entitled to pensionary benefits in absence of regularization – Appellants are either former employees or legal representatives of employees who had rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service under the Department of Posts as casual labourers (Night Guards) spanning
Issue for Consideration Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words,
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a case of death occurring within the absolute privacy of a matrimonial home, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a homicidal hanging staged by the appellant-husband after an assault—thereby shifting facts to the husband—or whether it was a case of voluntary suicidal hanging as claimed by the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant, was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was tormented and tortured
Issue for Consideration Whether the order of conviction by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court, based on the circumstances of the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of the objects used as weapons and a motorbike, seizures from the place of occurrence, oral ought to be reversed. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Complete chain of circumstances, when not established – Trial court found from the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of the objects used as weapons and a motorbike, the seizures carried out
Issue for Consideration Whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the facts of all the Courts upholding validity of the Will. Headnotes† Will – Validity of Will – Exclusion of natural heirs – One BSN- testator executed bequeathing all the plaint schedule properties in the favour of his only sister L, who is the plaintiff and respondent no. 1 herein, and cancelled the POA executed in favour of his brother-in-law – Testator passed away on 30.11.1983 – After the death of the testator, an
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants can be denied the benefit of regularization solely on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that the decision in Umadevi case prohibits such regularization. Headnotes† Service Law – Regularization – that initial appointment was not against sanctioned posts, despite having rendered continuous service for decades and regularization of similarly situated workers – Impermissibility – Appellants engaged as Muster Roll workers under various departments of the Government of Assam prior
509 : 2026 INSC 520 Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8054 of 2026) 21 May 2026 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the exercise of power by the Visitor-President Act, 2013 – s.46(b) – Transitional provisions – Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 – Statute No.28(1) – Removal of employees of University – President of India, being the Visitor of the University approved the appointment of the
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was implicated in the present case on the basis of mistaken identity. Headnotes† Case of Mistaken Identity – FIR was registered u/ss.120B IPC; ss.10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), 38(1), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1919; s.14(c), Foreigners Act, 1946; and s.3 r/w s.12(1)(a), Passport Act, 1967 at Q Branch police station, Trichy, in May, 2015 alleging that a conspiracy was being hatched between A-1, A-5 (named ‘Sri’) and certain other accused persons, to revive the banned Liberation
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether s.13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 can be interpreted to permit fresh recommendation or change in place of posting of a waitlisted candidate, who has already been recommended for appointment elsewhere; and Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, repealing the Old Act, the recommendation dated 13.12.2023 and consequential communications and placement order dated 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2025, issued in favour of the appellant can be sustained within the statutory scheme of the New
Issue for Consideration The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed by the High Court wherein, an issue with respect to the scope and applicability of the first proviso to s.223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had arisen, while where the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) had been filed prior to the date of commencement of the BNSS. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.2(1)(k), 4, 5, 210, First proviso to s.223(1), 531 – Prevention of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether under the power of s.483 of BNSS 2023, the Court could have issued directions to the trial court to issue summons u/ss.62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures as against those persons who delay or impede proceedings. Headnotes† Bharatiya Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – High Court while exercising bail jurisdiction, undertaking exercise of issuing directions – Power of – High Court dismissed the second bail application in a case u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and directed
Issue for Consideration Whether the Decree in question is a simple Preliminary Decree, or whether the Trial Court, made it both a Preliminary and a Final Decree; whether the same could be put to Execution; whether the High Court erred in interdicting the Execution Proceedings holding that before Decree was necessary. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.2(2), Or.XX r.18, Or.XX r.12 – Preliminary decree when itself final decree – Appellant filed Suit for partition and separate possession of the Subject Flat – Preliminary Decree passed by Trial Court
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the premature release of the petitioner sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased, and has been in jail for approximately twenty-two years. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(7) – Bharatiya Nagarik s.473 – Remission/Premature Release – Petitioner along with other co-accused convicted for the murder of the deceased by the Special Judge u/s.120B/302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine – Investigation initially carried out by UP police and was later transferred to
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant, being the co-owner of the suit building fell within the statutory definition of ‘landlord’ under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; what constitutes a pleading; what is the distinction between the pleading stand satisfied in the present case. Headnotes† Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – s.5(3) – “landlord” – Small Causes Court decreed the eviction suit in favour of Appellant-Plaintiff No.1 (a co-landlord as well as co-owner of the
Issue for Consideration Issues arose whether the second application u/Ord.VII r.11 is barred by the principle of Res judicata; whether s.6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act operates as a bar to the institution of a suit, warranting rejection of the plaint u/Ord.VII r.11(d); and whether the the H.S. Act that is independent of the 2005 Amendment and unaffected by s.6(5). Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11(a), (b) & (d), ss.11, 115 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.6, 6(5), 8 – Rejection of plaint – Res judicata –
Issue for Consideration Whether the amount of money received as Mediclaim, in terms of a mediclaim policy, is deductible from an award passed by a Claims Tribunal or not. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – ss.166, 168 – Amount received as mediclaim/medical insurance not by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) – High Court by way of the impugned judgment held that the amount received by a claimant by way of his mediclaim, is not deductible when such a claimant is before the MACT seeking compensation for injuries suffered as a result of an accident –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the students transferred to private medical colleges liable to pay fees at Government rates or at the rates applicable to private medical colleges; how the differential liability, if any, is to be apportioned between the students and the Educational of Odisha and/or the MCI/NMC should be directed to make good the deficiency; and whether the entire liability should be fixed on the Education Trust. Headnotes† Education/Educational Institutions – Medical colleges – Denial of renewal of recognition to medical