admin_nupur

SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY AND OTHERS — Appellant VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 2346 of 2011

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY AND OTHERS — Appellant VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 2346 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION:- 26-07-2023 HEADNOTE WITH FULL TEXT JUDGMENT Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 and 120-B – Murder –

SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY AND OTHERS — Appellant VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 2346 of 2011 Read More »

Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (29.03.2023 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/2210/2023

Arbitration Act. Difference between Interim award and interim order. Interim award is decision by Arbitrator in line of main controversy between the parties Order like rejecting implead application or amendment application is just an interim order. An interim Award has to be in the nature of a part judgment and decree as envisaged under Section

Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (29.03.2023 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/2210/2023 Read More »

Kalyan v/s Mosmat. Civil Misc no. 354/2018

हिन्दू दत्तक ग्रहण एवं भरण-पोषण अधिनियम, 1956—धारा 19(1) व 19(2)—विधवा पुत्रवधु द्वारा भरण-पोषण—विधवा पुत्रवधु अपने ससुर से भरण-पोषण केवल उन्हीं परिस्थितियों में प्राप्त कर सकती है जब ससुर के पास अविभाजित सँयुक्त परिवार की संपत्ति हो—इसके अतिरिक्त, विधवा पुत्रवधु के लिए यह स्थापित करना भी आवश्यक है कि अविभाजित पैतृक संपत्ति ससुर के कब्जे (Possession)

Kalyan v/s Mosmat. Civil Misc no. 354/2018 Read More »

P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through Lr Paka Saroja v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through Lr Paka Saroja v. State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION:- 21-09-2023 HEADNOTE WITH FULL TEXT JUDGMENT CRIMINAL LAWS Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 20 – Statutory presumption under Section 20, when can be raised. Held, once undue advantage

P. Sarangapani (Dead) Through Lr Paka Saroja v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2011 Read More »

Saroj SharmaVs State of UP & othersAllahabad High Court [ SJ ]Writ. C. No. 44673 of 20082015 AAC 930 (ALL)

Claim For Compensation Stood Not Abated After Death Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) S.166 — Application for substitution as legal heirs — Rejection of — Validity — Claimant had filed claim petition during his life time for injuries sustained by him in accident — After death of claimant, petitioner being wife of claimant, entitled

Saroj SharmaVs State of UP & othersAllahabad High Court [ SJ ]Writ. C. No. 44673 of 20082015 AAC 930 (ALL) Read More »

Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014, (Arising out of Slp (c ) No. 17115/2010)

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014, (Arising out of Slp (c ) No. 17115/2010) DATE OF DECISION:- 21-09-2023 HEADNOTE WITH FULL TEXT JUDGMENT Succession Act, 1925 Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 – What are the requirements for proving

Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014, (Arising out of Slp (c ) No. 17115/2010) Read More »

Vineeta Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma.. Supreme Court Of India(Larger Bench)

■ हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 की प्रतिस्थापित धारा 6 में निहित प्रावधान संशोधन से पहले या बाद में पैदा हुई पुत्री को पुत्र के समान अधिकार और दायित्व के रूप में सहदायिक (Coparcener) का दर्जा प्रदान करते हैं। ■ सहभागी सम्पत्ति में एक पुत्री का अधिकार जन्म से होता है और इसलिए, यह आवश्यक नहीं

Vineeta Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma.. Supreme Court Of India(Larger Bench) Read More »

State vs Babita CRLREVP 267/18 04/09/23 [ SHARMA JJ ]

• Section 227 CRPC Discharge Challenge Allegations that female accused persons instigated other male accused persons to assault complainant Accused persons being females discharged on ground that there was no evidence of instigating male accused persons as male accused persons were already armed with different weapon However, complainant specifically stated that when male accused persons

State vs Babita CRLREVP 267/18 04/09/23 [ SHARMA JJ ] Read More »

State of UP vs Narendra CRA 471/11 01/09/23 [ Rakesh JJ ]…

• Criminal Trial Defective investigation The prosecution case cannot be doubted due to the defective investigation because I.0. is not under the control of the complainant and the complainant cannot be penalized for the negligence of the I.O The loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor

State of UP vs Narendra CRA 471/11 01/09/23 [ Rakesh JJ ]… Read More »