Grant of bail under S. 439 though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and, thus, order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must […]
Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases and it is not justified for Court in embarking upon enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint. Inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction
In this case, second appeal was filed against dismissal of first appeal for default on ground of delay, without any decision on merits in such first appeal. Only permissible course before High Court, held, was to consider validity of such first appellate order. High Court in second appeal, held, erred in treating the matter as
Interference made by High Court under impugned judgment so far as additional compensation assessed by Reference court is concerned, is neither supported by material on record nor sustainable in law. Interference with award of additional compensation, by Reference Court in exercise of its power under S. 18, when permissible, explained. [Ambalal Babulal Patel v.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 54, 23(1-A) and 18 — Additional compensation Read More »
Intention of testator to make testament must be proved, and propounder of will must examine one or more attesting witnesses and remove all suspicious circumstances with regard to execution of will. Letters of administration not granted. [Murthy v. C. Saradambal, (2022) 3 SCC 209]
Award or document providing for effectuating a division of joint family properties in the future, held, fell under S. 17(2)(v) and was thus exempt from compulsory registration. Test in such a case is whether document/award itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title.
Registration Act, 1908 — Ss. 17(1)(e), 17(1)(b) and 17(2)(v) Read More »
Offence under S. 7 relating to public servants taking bribe requires proof of: (a) demand of illegal gratification, and (b) acceptance thereof. Proof of demand of bribe by public servant and its acceptance by him, both are a sine qua non for establishing offence under S. 7. [K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Offence under S. 7 — When established Read More »
when Imposition of vicarious liability with aid of S. 34 is permissible and what are the requirements of the same. Significance of amendment made to S. 34 in 1870 adding the phrase “in furtherance of the common intention” is to be construed as an advancement or promotion. Necessity of proving that accused on whom vicarious
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 34 — Imposition of vicarious liability Read More »
First incident of the altercations that took place between the deceased and the accused was stopped by the villagers. Second incident occurring later in which accused causing multiple grievous injuries to vital parts of the deceased with great force, which were the main cause of death and cannot be said to be result of sudden
Committee of Creditors (CoC) has power to pass a resolution for liquidation of corporate debtor till such time as the plan has not been approved by adjudicating authority. Decision in regard to liquidation of corporate debtor was not-interfered with and plea of violation of natural justice also rejected. Hence, order of NCLAT, held, did not
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:
The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.