✅ Landmark Judgments from January to June 2025 1️⃣ RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA v. DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO, 2025 SC 📌 Facts of the case 📌 Supreme Court Held 2️⃣ KIM WANSOO v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2025 SC 📌 Facts of the case 📌 High Court’s View 📌

What is limitation period for filing of execution of compromise decree of S 138 of N I Act case?Introduction Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) is a widely used legal provision to address the offence of dishonour of cheques. Often, parties involved in such cases opt for a compromise or settlement,

J & K HC: Magistrate should not issue non-bailable warrant against accused at pre-cognizance stage of the complaint U/S 138 of NI ActSo far as the case in hand is concerned, the learned Magistrate upon satisfying himself regarding to record the service of pre-cognizance notice could have inferred, the forfeiture of the right of hearing

Rajasthan HC: High Court Affirms Accused’s Right to Seek Call and Location Details of Prosecution Witnesses During Prosecution EvidenceThe petitioner herein is under-trial being accused serious offence under Section 302 of IPC. If he is held guilty, the consequence thereof may result into death penalty and/or conviction for life imprisonment. Any negligence or dereliction in

🛡️Most Important 101 Legal Maxims

दीवानी विधि–संपत्ति विधि–उत्तराधिकार कानून–पंजीकृत वसीयत की प्रामाणिकता की उपधारणा–आपत्ति करने वाले पर भार—पंजीकृत वसीयत, साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 114 के अधीन अपनी प्रामाणिकता के संबंध में विधिक उपधारणा के साथ आती है—यदि ऐसी वसीयत के निष्पादन (execution) का समर्थन सशक्त एवं ठोस साक्ष्यों द्वारा किया गया हो और उसका परीक्षण न्यायालय द्वारा अनुमोदन किया गया

Basic Concepts: What is difference between hurt and injury as per provisions of Indian penal code?Hurt is bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person as defined in section 319 IPC. Section 44 IPC defines injury as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. Key Differences Between Hurt

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5921 OF 2015METPALLI LASUM BAI(SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMETAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BYLRS. …RESPONDENT(S)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5922 OF 2015J U D G M E N TMehta, J.

BUILDER NOT PROVIDED FACILITIES AS PROMISED—JUDGEMENT IN FAVOUR OF FLAT OWNERS. JUDGEMENT:–Debashis Sinha Vs. M/s RNR Enterprises Dt. 9.2.2023—Supreme Court.