Inheritance–Legal heir–Claim over property–Respondent claimed that disputed property in itself acquired property of his father–However, no evidence produced by respondent that the property was self acquired property his father–No entry of name of respondent in revenue record–Revisional Court rightly held that property was not self acquired property of father of respondent.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 612 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan…
Accident–Highest/lowest multiplier–Highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal No. of 2009…
Common intention–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC–Appellant cannot be held guilty by application of Section 34 IPC–His conviction is accordingly set aside. Common intention–Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself–For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 606 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…
Corruption–Pecuniary resources and property in possession of the accused person or any other person on his behalf have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sub-section 3 of Section 5, whether these were acquired before or after the Act came into force
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 603 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of…
Murder–Appeal against acquittal–Evidence clearly established that the accused caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased–PWs. 3 & 16 corroborated the prosecution version–High Court erroneously observed that there was no injury–Farsa injury caused on the head has not been noticed–Matter remitted to the High Court for detailed analysis.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 600 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 661…
Murder–An attack with a deadly weapon on the vital part of the body and that proved to be a fatal blow–Exception 4 to Section 300 has no application. Murder–Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies in the absence of any premeditation.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 597 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kuamr Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…
Malaria is most commonly transmitted to humans through malaria virus infested mosquito bites, and when a virus is contracted through normal means brought about by everyday life it cannot be deemed to be an unexpected or unforeseen accident — HELD the illness of encephalitis malaria through a mosquito bite cannot be considered as an accident. It was neither unexpected nor unforeseen. It was not a peril insured against in the policy of accident insurance
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. MOUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…
Since we have formed an opinion to dispose of this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims arising out of this case, we do not consider it necessary to examine any legal issue arising in the case though argued by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari,…
High Court has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order and adopting a mechanical process in appointing the Arbitrator without any supportive evidence on record to prima facie substantiate that an arbitral dispute subsisted under the agreement which needed to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication – Appeals allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. ANTIQUE ART EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi,…
Civil Suit – Decree for permanent injunction – Application for re-hearing of the second appeal –It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER TIWARI — Appellant Vs. KEDAR NATH(DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…