Limitation in a suit for composite relief. The limitation is fixed on the basis of substantive or main relief in the suit. When a composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of possession, limitation for suit shall be three years to start from the date cause of […]
Rajpal Singh v/s Saroj (Dead) through L.Rs. and another… Read More »
🌟 दस्तावेज़ को अदालत में साक्ष्य के रूप में प्रस्तुत किए जाने से पहले जालसाजी की गई हो तो CrPC की धारा 195 लागू नहीं होती: सुप्रीम कोर्ट जालसाजी के आरोपों से जुड़े मामले से निपटते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हाल ही में दोहराया कि न्यायालय में दायर दस्तावेजों की जालसाजी के आरोप की जांच
अरोकियासामी बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य और अन्य, एसएलपी (सीआरएल) नंबर 5805/2023… Read More »
📌👆The Principles governing such cases are•: (i) Geneaiogies admitted or proved to -be old and relied on in previous cases are doubtless relevant and in some cases may even ·be conclusive of the facts proved, but there are several considerations which must be kept In mind viz. : (a) Source of the genealogy and its
📌👆The Principles governing such cases are… Read More »
धारा 173(2) और 173(8) दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता—अग्रिम विवेचना—प्राथमिक रिपोर्ट तथा पूरक रिपोर्ट/सप्लीमेंट्री/रिपोर्ट—मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा अधिकार का प्रयोग—निर्णीत, जब धारा 173(2) के तहत प्रारंभिक रिपोर्ट के बाद पूरक रिपोर्ट/सप्लीमेंट्री/रिपोर्ट दाखिल की जाती है, तो मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा दोनों रिपोर्टों पर संयुक्त रूप से एक साथ विचार करना चाहिए।
Akhilesh yadav v/s State of U.P. Read More »
A witness cannot be asked to explain the statement of a third party or the document of a third party of which the witness is not a part. Section 145 of the Evidence Act permits a witness being cross-examined as to previous statement made by him and not by a third person. Supreme Court Makhan
Makhan Lal Bangal v/s Manas Bhunia & Ors. Read More »
Service Law – Pay Anomaly – Junior drawing higher salary – Rectification of anomaly – Promotion – Pay revision – Pre-printed format for pay option – Failure to add phrase “with next date of increment in the revised scale” – Petitioner’s pay reduced to Rs.8550/from Rs.8825/while juniors received higher increments – Despite representations, the respondents
Purshottam vs H.P. State CWPOA 5504/20 21/05/24 [ HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ]… Read More »
Service matter Even a ‘right’ decision by a ‘wrong’ forum is no decision. Court set aside the order of removal from service for the reason that authority that had passed the order, was not empowered to do so. Rama Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority; MANU/DE/1432/2000 : 2000 (4) L.L.N. 1103,AndRajendra Singh vs. The State of
Rama Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority… Read More »
