Issue for Consideration Whether a notice seeking commencement of arbitration, issued on 02.06.2022, could set in motion the process of resolution of a dispute regarding a work completed as early as on 30.07.2000. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.42, 43 – 18 – Work completed in the year 2000 – Notice seeking commencement of arbitration issued after 21 years in 2022 – By way of the impugned judgment, Arbitrator appointed by High Court – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – Arbitration though is an alternate dispute
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Appellant had no lis before it and was not entitled to be heard in the proceedings in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, and, if not, what consequential directions ought to follow in relation to the No. 38742 of 2025 and the further course to be adopted in respect of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026. Headnotes† Impleadment – Writ Proceedings – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.I, r.10 – Proper Party – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping in view the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955. Headnotes† State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 – rr.22(i)(c), 22(i)(a), 20, 7 – upon r.22(i)(c) to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits, whereas the respondent(s) contended by placing reliance on r.22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and is, therefore, not entitled to pension – Whether the appellant is entitled for
Issue for Consideration (i) What is contended by the appellant is that punishment imposed u/s.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the appellant would take care of the punishment for the conviction u/s.25 and s.29 of the Act, which according to the appellant, are only Given the legislative mandate, whether the said contention has to be negatived; (ii) Whether the fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the manner of filling of a vacancy reserved for Person with Disability with Low Vision (PWD-LV) in the Unreserved category UR (PWD-LV), where the recruitment notification stipulated that in case of unreserved candidate in the PWD-LV category, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit. Headnotes† Service law – Reservation – Filling up of unreserved vacancies by reserved candidates – Mobility of a PWD-LV candidate from reserved
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted of the charge u/s.302 IPC. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof – on inter alia the ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4; recovery of a blood-stained axe and clothes pursuant to disclosure u/s.27; and recovery of the driving licence of the appellant from the spot – Interference with: Held: The ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4 does not
Issue for Consideration Under Regulation 29 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulation), a notice of voluntary retirement if not refused within the prescribed period of three months or before the date as specified in the notice, whether such notice would be deemed issuance of show cause notice dated 11.11.2010 by the Appellant may fall within the purview of institution of the disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings be treated as pending in terms of Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the Service Regulation; whether further action taken by the Appellant
Issue for Consideration Whether the Sessions Court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the complaint as filed by the appellant u/s.138 of the N.I. Act was liable to be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued by the second respondent was not towards any Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Once the basic ingredients of s.138 are satisfied, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued was not towards a legally enforceable debt – Appellant’s case
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 323, 324 and 302 rw s.34 – Culpable homicide – Use of the word ‘bastard’, if obscene –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-surgeon performed Orchidopexy-surgical procedure, on a one and a half year boy, for which doctors had obtained consent – Appellant also performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the boy – Allegations by
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the two co-accused and declining the similar relief to the remaining accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, of FIR – Complaint regarding assault and criminal intimidation – FIR lodged u/ss.143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, and 427 IPC – Quashing of proceedings sought – High Court quashed proceedings against two co-accused but denied similar relief to the appellants –
Issue for Consideration The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the allegations and the prima facie material relating to the award and execution of public works contracts, including the asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and official documentation, and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a direction by this Court for an independent investigation by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so, the scope of such investigation and the
Issue for Consideration Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, connived with two others (one officer and a gunman) to misappropriate money of the customers for their personal gain, stealing bank records, etc. – The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the co- delinquent gunman while the co-delinquent officer
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for killing his wife by setting her on fire, ought to be upheld. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – When can be relied over her and killed her by setting her on fire – Concurrent conviction u/s.302, IPC relying upon on the dying declaration of the deceased stating that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Challenge to: Held: Dying declarations are exceptions to
Issue for Consideration Whether the black listing order, in the instant case, suffers from patent infirmities; whether the blacklisting, being stigmatic and exclusionary in nature, can be imposed mechanistically. Headnotes† Contract – Termination – Blacklisting – contractor with the Water and Sanitation Department was contracted for construction of an Elevated Service Reservoir (ESR) by issuance of a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) on 06.03.2023 – During the subsistence of the contract, on 01.06.2024, the top dome of the reservoir collapsed –
Issue for Consideration The writ petitions instituted by the appellants assailing the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, came to be dismissed. Whether the impugned order passed by the High to be set aside. Headnotes† Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – ss.4, 37A – Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 – Appellants alleged to have contravened the provisions of s.4 of FEMA, r/w. FEMA Regulations, on the
Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated. Headnotes† U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of the paddy procurement centre at
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’; whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be available to the appellants. Headnotes† Code of under, when not available – First respondent-complainant (wife of the deceased) filed complaint against three police officials viz. co-accused-‘SM’, an Assistant Commissioner of Police; the first-appellant and the second-appellant, a Police Constable alleging that at the
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward; (ii) Whether in the enquiry report and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not pressed before the High Court. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings u/s.420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Offence of cheating – Appellant- movie producer borrowed money from the complainant on assurance that it would in profits – Appellant issued two post-dated cheques towards return of the principal amount – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account – Complaint for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust – Petition for quashing of report and