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. )…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – High Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law as provided under Section 100 of the Code–Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAND KAUR (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. MEHAR KAUR (D) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari,…
The question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the Appellate Court was legal or not. Second, instead of deciding the aforementioned question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant (accused) with simple imprisonment for 2 months along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to respondent No.1 (complainant). It was not legally permissible.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSANTA DEY — Appellant Vs. BABLI MAJUMDAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
–The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code–HELD –On going through the evidence of PW1 in its entirety, we concur with the opinion rendered by the courts below that her evidence appears to be natural, consistent, probable and reliable. Her evidence remains unimpeached on material particulars. PW1 has given the details of the incident in question and we do not find any major contradiction in her evidence so as to disbelieve her testimony.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJAGOPAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee,…