admin_nupur

Service matter Selection cannot be denied merely because the candidate has been named in a criminal matrimonial case. Merely Being Named In FIR On Matrimonial Offences Can’t Be Treated As Impediment For Public Appointment. “The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in […]

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT State of KarnatakaVersusSajumon alias Saju Criminal Appellant No. 1266 of 2019, decided on 25.11.2019 PENAL CODE, 1860-Sections 302, 304-Circumstantial evidence Respondent reasonable doubt-On close reading of the materials, which have been produced before the Court below would clearly go to show that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. There are no

2019 (2) TLNJ 407 Rajeswari vs Kannan Date of Judgment: 30.04.2019 Hindu Marriage Act, Section 28 – Divorce by wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion – alleging that husband not employed, borrowed all over the village and refused to heed the requirements of the appellant and children – Petition dismissed. In the appeal

2019 (3)CTC 596 Union of India Vs Parmar Construction Company Date of Judgment29-3-2019 Section 11 (6), 12(5), 21 &26 (As amended by Arbitration and conciliation Amendment) Act 2015 (3 of 2016) Retrospective application of 2015 Amendment Act to pending proceedings -When Maintainable 2015 Amendment Act came in to force on 23-102015 – The Amendment Act

2019(5) SCC 360 Vijay Hathising Shah and anr. Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi and ors. Date of Judgment : 25.02.2019 Application filed by the 1st respondent for amendment of plaint in the partition suit rejected by the trial court – High court allowed it by impugned order – On appeal it is Held that, the trial