Issue for Consideration Whether, in the absence of a formal entry of the respondent no.1’s name in the register of members, he could nonetheless be regarded as a “member” of the appellant-company so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board u/ss.397 and 398 Act, 1956. Headnotes† Companies Act, 1956 – ss.2(27), 41, 397, 398, 399 – “member” – High Court and the Company Law Board upheld respondent no.1 as a deemed member of the company, entitled to maintain a petition u/ss.397 and 398 – Whether the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether, upon death of the doctor during pendency of proceedings at appellate stage, the legal heirs can be impleaded and held liable for the alleged act of medical negligence of the deceased doctor, and if yes, then to Act, 1986 – ss.13(7), 2(b)(v) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss.38(12), 2(5)(vi) – Succession Act, 1925 – s.306 – Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. 22, r.4 – Continuation of ‘right to
Issue for Consideration Whether u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 under, cannot be invoked seeking directions for registration of FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available – Complainant Company filed complaints before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Office alleging forgery, impersonation and fraud by accused persons including
Issue for Consideration Correctness or otherwise of the impugned order granting rejection of the plaint. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – Application of Or.II r.2 not a ground for rejection of plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) – Original owner first suit against defendant No.1-son, seeking inter alia permanent injunction – After the death of the original owner, Appellants herein (his wife and daughters) filed the second suit – Respondent-defendants filed application u/Or.VII r.11 in the second suit seeking rejection of
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains whether, despite an express designation of Srinagar as seat of arbitration, the conduct of proceedings and rendering of the award at New Delhi would confer jurisdiction upon courts at New Delhi; and the distinction between the seat and consequent determination of supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 – s.34 – Juridical seat of arbitration – Appellant engaged respondent- contractor for execution of road projects –
Issue for Consideration Matter arose as regards the order passed by the High Court rejecting the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal, when many of the allegations in the instant case and the earlier case appear to Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal – FIR registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one alleging that the appellant-former Minister in the State of Jharkhand and another Minister, while holding the responsible public office of a Minister in
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under the DV Act should be quashed; whether any party can back out from the Settlement Agreement arrived at in the mediation proceedings; and whether this Court, can exercise its powers u/Art.142(1) to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, upon an application filed by the appellant-husband; if yes, then on what terms and conditions. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Divorce
Issue for Consideration Whether in terms of the provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, the amalgamated company as successor of the amalgamating company shall be entitled to set-off of the losses suffered. Headnotes† Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – ss.12, 54 s.72A – A company named PRP amalgamated with the appellant company – The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned in November 2006 – The appointed date was fixed as 01.01.2006 – There were accumulated losses in the balance sheet of amalgamating company – The issue
Issue for Consideration Challenge by the appellant-wife to the decree of divorce granted to the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – ss.13(1) (ia) and 13(1) (ib) – Divorce granted by Family Court holding that the husband had also succeeded in establishing desertion – Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed – High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Family Court as also the decree of divorce – Interference with, if warranted: Held: No – Marriage between the
Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and if so, to what extent; whether the benefit of s.4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced only with payment of fine, and not imprisonment. Headnotes† Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of good conduct – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – s.4 – Benefit of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction u/s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden was duly discharged in the present case; whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constituted a mere reconstitution of partnership or
Issue for Consideration Once the prescribed limitation period u/s.61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 expired, whether it was open to the suspended director to take steps to convert the incompetent appeal and maintain an appeal in his Code, 2016 – ss.16, 17, 61 – A suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited, the corporate debtor, filed the present appeal u/s.62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by the NCLAT – By the said judgment, the
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order misdirected itself in its approach and reasoning to reverse the judgment of Single Judge for all the stated facts, reasons and circumstances, the non-acceptance of the case of the appellant post of Society Manager. Headnotes† Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Appellant having experience 28 years of working in the Society, came to be appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak vide order dated 02.09.1987, on permanent basis – He had passed the Higher Secondary
Issue for Consideration If Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) are to be added on salary and pension payable to serving employees and retired employees, respectively, whether there could be a higher rate for enhancement of DA than what it is for DR. Headnotes† Constitution of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief – Retired employees of KSRTC filed a writ petition questioning the lower rate fixed for enhancement of DR on pension than what was fixed for enhancement of DA on salary – Their grievance was that the serving employees got enhancement of DA by 14
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal filed by the defendants, whereby the judgment passed by the first appellate court was upheld and the decree of the specific performance as passed in first – Relief of – Agreement to sell between the parties – Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by the plaintiff, dismissed holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but decreed
Issue for Consideration The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths, roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the writ petition seeking removal of of
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the execution of a compromise decree passed in a civil suit; and whether the executing court can go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it stands without making any modifications therein. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Court executing decree – Execution of a compromise decree passed in a suit – Defendant-respondent became decree holder and the plaintiff-appellant became judgment debtor – Executing Court in the execution petition modified the compromise decree by varying the
Issue for Consideration What would be the relevant date for computation of the period of limitation, whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – High Court quashed the FIR on the ground of limitation holding that the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is relevant and as cognizance was taken after a period of one year, the bar of limitation u/s.468
Issue for Consideration Whether, on a prima facie view, there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties and as such, whether the reference to arbitration u/s.11 by the High Court warrants interference by this Court. Headnotes† Arbitration – s.7 – Arbitration Agreement – General reference in the letter of intent to an arbitration clause contained in the tender documents does not have the effect of ‘incorporation’ of the arbitration clause contained therein in the contract – High Court on
Issue for Consideration The High Court, in a revision filed at the instance of the respondent no.2-complainant, set aside the order granting bail to the accused- appellant herein in a case involving offences triable by the Court of Magistrate after a gap of nearly 8 years. Headnotes† Code s.437 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.480 – Bail – Grant of – The dispute between the appellant and respondent no.2-complainant was regarding tenancy rights over a portion of a building – Respondent no.2-complainant instituted a civil suit