admin_nupur

धारा 397 IPC के अपराध के लिए सिर्फ उसी अभियुक्त को दण्डित किया जा सकता है जिसने अपराध में खतरनाक आयुध/शस्त्र का उपयोग किया हो। धारा 397 IPC किसी भी संयुक्त दायित्व (Constructive Liability) का गठन नहीं करती है। धारा 397 IPC के अपराध की पूर्णता के लिए सिर्फ इतना ही पर्याप्त है कि अभियुक्त […]

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (2022) AIR(SC) 5756 : (2023) AIR(SC)Civil 159 : (2022) 6 ALLMR 795 : (2023) 1 CivCC 281 : (2022) 11 JT 334 : (2022) 4 RLW 3018 : (2022) 16 SCALE 385 SUMER CORPORATION Vs.VIJAY ANANT GANGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

• Section 19, 190, 202, 204, 262, 265, 482 CRPC NI ACT Section 138, 141 Challenge Appeal against conviction High Court dismissed the petitions instituted by the appellants to quash the criminal complaint instituted by the second respondent for offences punishable and challenge an order of summons Mundra on the complaint The complaint arises from

• Punjab Courts Act, Section 36 Maligning Judicial Officers via Youtube After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the voluminous record on the file – On account of the variant stands of both the parties, it would be in the interest of justice, if proper charge is framed against the respondent-contemnor

AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2191(From: 2000 APHC 2029) Civil Appeal No. 6345 of 2000,D.18-5-2007. M/s. Kamakshi Builders v. M/s. Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors. (A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34-Suit for recovery of possession Termination of tenancy-Tenant running school on property, claimed to have acquired ownership in property by way of oral

क्या अदालत आपसी सहमति से तलाक की याचिका को सिर्फ इसलिए खारिज कर सकती है क्योंकि पति और पत्नी एक ही परिसर में रह रहे हैं? कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट ने जवाब दिया कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट ने माना है कि सिर्फ इसलिए कि अलग हो चुके जोड़े एक ही छत के नीचे रह रहे हैं, अदालत आपसी सहमति

Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) [Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2011] Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Behera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned Advocateon- Record appearing for the respondent. 2. The two accused appellants, father and son, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against their

2019 CRI. L. J. 3047(GUJARAT HIGH COURT) State of Gujarat v. Bharwad Danubhai Kachrabhai and others. Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2008,D/14-3-2019. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S. 3(1)(x)-Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506, 114 Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3- Offence of