admin_nupur

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Divorce to Convicted Man in Section 498A Case, Denies Alimony to WifePunjab and Haryana High Court Grants Divorce to Convicted Man in Section 498A Case, Denies Alimony to WifeAugust 6, 2024 / 498a, 498A Case, Divorce, Punjab and Haryana High CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court Grants Divorce to Convicted

2024 (III) ILR-CUT-652 NABAKISHORE NAIK V. STATE OF ODISHA 👆📌CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 – Appeal U/s. 374 of Cr.P.C. filed against the judgement dt. 24.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2011 – Appellant was found guilty U/s. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

2024 (III) ILR-CUT-363 W.P.(C) NO. 31638 OF 2022 BIBOL TOPPO & ORS. VersusSTATE OF ODISHA (REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT) & ORS. (A)RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 – Sections 2(2)(b), 41 – As per the Social Impact Assessment Report most of the people from three affected

2024 (III) ILR-CUT-694 SASMITA NAYAK V. ANITA PATTNAIK & ORS. (CMP NO. 492 OF 2020) 📌👆 SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Section 19(b) – One contract for sale was executed by the original defendant in favor of the plaintiff – Suit for specific performance of such agreement for sale has been filed against the defendant

Laxmi Das V. The State of W.B. (2025 SC)

If Any Police Station Left Outside Coverage Area Of CCTV Camera, Such Lapse Shall Be Considered As Contempt Of Court (S.P. and SHO liable) Madhya Pradesh HC {Akhilesh Pandey v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2024} 🌟 Landmark judgments on CCTV in police stations {Both 2 and 3 dealt with oversight committee to study and

STRONG STAND AGAINST PERJURY IN MAINTENANCE CASES. ◾Wife earning 42000 per month claims she is unemployed in her affidavit as per Rajneesh vs Neha Judgment in Saket Court ◾Demands 1.5 Lac per month from Husband ◾When enquiry reveals her lie, she apologises to court, claims she did so being misguided by Advocate ◾Judge Smita Garg

DELHI HIGH COURT IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT Section 304 IPC Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appeal against Conviction – There is no eye witness to the burning of deceased – The deceased did not die immediately on the day of burning and was certainly on his way to recovery at his home and not at

CORRESPONDING SECTIONS and COMPARISON SUMMARY of BNS / IPC Section 100 of BNS – Culpable homicide[No change] Section 299, 302 & 304 Part II IPC – The act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies is an unfortunate practice – In the absence of any evidence on record to suggest that the Appellant aimed at and