Issue for Consideration i) Whether the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; ii) Whether the impugned Act effects compulsory acquisition and thereby offending Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.14 – Validity of Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 (impugned Act) – The
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the declaration that the election of the respondent to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti was invalid, however, setting aside the declaration made in favour of the appellant and directing fresh election for the said post. Headnotes† Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 – ss.45(1)(v), 44-E, 44-J – Disqualification on becoming a member and continuing as a member – Election to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti – Appellant and the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate the application filed u/Or.XLI, r.27 of CPC while deciding the first appeal has resulted in any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court. Headnotes† Code Or.XLI, r.27 – Appellant instituted suit seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants – Trial Court decreed the suit – Respondent-defendants preferred first appeal before the High Court – During the pendency of the
Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-State was justified in law in classifying the present appellants, who were engaged on an academic arrangement basis under the impugned SRO No. 384 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) class u/s.3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and thereby excluding them from the benefit of regularisation contemplated under the said enactment. Headnotes† Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – ss.3(b), 5(v)
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting the relief of quashing solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general in nature, while declining the same relief to the appellants-parents-in-laws. Headnotes† Code of s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, 498A and 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3 and 4 – Dowry case against in-laws – Quashing of criminal proceedings – FIR by complainant-wife against her husband, parents-in-law-appellants, and sister-in-law
Issue for Consideration The appellants herein were dismissed from the post of librarian on which they were appointed by the State of Bihar. It was on account of the fact that the degree obtained by them from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was declared invalid as Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 under which the University was established, was later on declared to be ultra vires. Headnotes† Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – The University in question (mentioned at serial no.23) was granted recognition by the State of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded to the Private Respondents. Headnotes† Sentencing – Reducing the sentence in cases of grave offences by enhancing the compensation payable to the victim – Impermissibility – to or a substitute for punishment – Trial Court convicted the accused persons u/ss.307, 324 and 326, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of ₹ 5,000/- each (totalling to ₹ 10,000/-) – High Court vide impugned judgment maintained
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis; whether the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and that of ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Statement of accused made when not in police custody, outside the purview of s.27 – High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the step-father for the murder of his six year-old
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent No.1 extending the parity principle ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Bail – Offences of pecuniary nature – Factors to be u/ss.406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, IPC, s.409 added later, alleging that he had supplied foodgrains to four accused persons including respondent No.1 (operating under different names), but he was paid only ₹5,02,57,000/- out of the total sum of ₹11,52,38,156/- and; the accused
Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the judgments in S.Nithya to the cricket associations; applicability of BCCI Constitution to the Appellant-District Cricket Association. Headnotes† Sports – Cricket – Applicability of the judgments in S.Nithya to the cricket associations – Respondent no.2-ex-office bearer of the appellant-association filed writ petition seeking directions that the appellant should conduct a free and fair election after preparation of a fresh voters list and impugned the
Issue for Consideration In the absence of any subsisting statutory control or saving provision operative on the date of the alleged incident, whether the prosecution of the appellants under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is legally tenable. Headnotes† Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Order 1989 – Cement Control Order, 1967 – Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 – The prosecution case is that the Public Works Department of the State Government had awarded the work of construction of a Khar passage in cement concrete – As per the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether r.6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules mandates that the State Eligibility Test-SET qualification must be in the concerned subject only for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers-HSST or in any subject so, whether the appellant satisfies the said requirement or qualifies for exemption u/r.10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules. Headnotes† Kerala Education Rules – Chapter XXXII, r.6(2)(24)(iii) – Interpretation – Essential qualifications for appointment as Higher Secondary
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted for the proposed unit when the land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur treated the site as falling in rural agricultural zone; whether “approval” recorded in Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act; whether the siting norms and environmental
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether the benefit of arrears of disability pension can be restricted to three years prior to filing of the original applications before the tribunal. Headnotes† Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Claim for arrears of disability pension – Benefit of arrears of disability pension, if can be restricted to three years prior to filing of the original applications before the tribunal: Held: Disability pension is grounded not merely in length of service, but in the impairment
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale in favour of the Appellant was without notice; whether the sale in favour of the Appellant can be brought within the purview of pendente lite, given that the arbitral award is for the recovery the Appellant is a transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser, and is barred by Or.XXI r.102, CPC from resisting the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI r.102 – Transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser barred by Or.XXI r.102
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service, based on its consideration of only a sole point raised on behalf of the first respondent with the other points raised. Headnotes† Judgment/Order – Several issues raised, matter decided considering a solitary point without dealing with other points – Impermissibility – School Tribunal set aside the order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant from
Issue for Consideration Whether the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Tuticorin (“HWP”) are covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Headnotes† Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – s.2(e) – Retired employees of HWP employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 claimed higher gratuity benefits under the PG Act – Controlling Authority held that the provisions of the PG Act are attracted to the employees of HWP, and directed to pay the difference of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld by the High Court. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of documents – Appellant-court duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that the appellant had approached him and received some tablets but he did not remember the date of treatment –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment of High Court wherein it dismissed the accused’s appeal against the order of the Special Judge whereby his prayer for discharge u/s.227 CrPC was allowed in part arising out of proceedings wherein charges were IPC and s.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge under – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) – Altercation and scuffle in a gathering
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was well within its reasons to grant the anticipatory bail by restricting it upto the stage of filing of the chargesheet; What will be the position, when an accused has been released on bail, pending the investigation, and later upon completion of addition of new cognizable and non-bailable offences. Headnotes† Bail – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Dowry death – An FIR was registered u/s.80(2)/85 BNS and ss.3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The appellant/brother- in-law of the