Category: I P C

Rape—Intercourse—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual inter course necessary to the offence rape. Modesty—Test—Action which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Rape—Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.

    2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Murder – Incident of firing – Ocular as well as medical evidence – Oral evidence not found at variance with medical evidence – Prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by fire arms substantially tallied with medical evidence – Inconsistency relating to distance from which gunshots were fired held to be inconsequential

  (2008) 8 JT 411 : (2008) 10 SCALE 536 : (2009) AIRSCW 1752 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before…

Murder—As per S.B. Sinha, J.- It can not be conclusively said that murder of wife for usurping property is a particularly rarest of rare incident–It could, be a rare case. Murder—Death penalty—Imposition of—As per Markandey Katju, J.- That pre-planned, calculated, cold-blooded murder has always been regarded as one of an aggravated kind.

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1851 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 454 of…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.