Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
The right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin…
Motor Accident Claims – Future prospects should be added with the income depending upon the age of the deceased – If the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospects.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE — Appellant Vs. LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath,…
An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA — Appellant Vs. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A (1) – Differential duty – Incorrectly determination of the assessable value of finished goods – Determination is required to be made on the basis of judgment and in a bonafide manner – An assessee can be accused for suppressing only such facts which it was otherwise required to be disclosed under the law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 22 – Cross-Objections – In circumstance wherein the cross objections filed by the appellant therein was not considered by the court of first appeal, matter must be remanded to the High Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHEERAJ SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Bela M.…
(CrPC) – Section 438 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 420 – Anticipatory Bail – Cheating – inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…
(CrPC) – Section 162 – No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPRIYA JAIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Special…
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Section 28-A – Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial taxes – clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature, therefore, is bound to be retrospective – Circular dated 8th October, 1998 does not run counter to the provisions of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTHOSH MAIZE & INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Health Insurance Policy – Once there is a valid insurance policy available in favour, the claim made for reimbursement of the expenses incurred is justifiable and deserves to be paid to him.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PRAKASH AHUJA — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…