Victims deposition occurred in 2013 and accused was arrested in 2016, after victims death in 2015 thus, requirements for applying Section 299(1) have been met hence impugned order passed by High Court is set aside.
Delays in proceedings were attributed to complainants inaction since 2002, as they failed to collect summons and notices despite court orders to expedite trial, indicating a lack of diligence to prosecute case effectively hence, complaint and summoning order are liable to be quashed as against Appellants.
Conviction under Section 326 IPC upheld but modified sentence due to appellants age and health, requiring them to serve until court rises and pay fine of Rs. 50,000 within two months.
Offence under Section 376D IPC, established post-Nirbhaya, mandates minimum sentence of twenty years and allows for life imprisonment, which has been applied in this case hence, sentence is modified to 20 years with possibility of remission.
Prosecution did not establish incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and evidence suggests deceased likely died in a motorcycle accident hence, impugned judgment of High Court and Trial Court are set aside and Appellants are acquitted of all charges for which they were tried.
Implications of Section 302 of IPC categorize offence as heinous, carrying minimum life sentence and Sessions Court also has discretion to seek expert assistance when necessary hence, no error committed by High Court in passing impugned order.
Judge and Division Bench of High Court were fully justified in rejecting plea of plaintiffs to grant them leave to file their written statement to counter-claim raised by contesting defendants, notwithstanding long delay on their part.
Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2001, which retroactively modified exemption for imported sugar under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, is constitutionally valid and within state legislative competence.
High Court was not justified in entertaining challenge under Article 227 of Constitution and staying arbitral proceedings, as remedy against rejection of a Section 16 of Act application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after pronouncement of final award.
There is no dispute that deceased was traveling on train and that incident occurred hence, lower courts have made an error by not awarding compensation to appellant.
High Court failed to identify substantial legal questions and incorrectly set aside previous appellate courts judgment, restoring original trial courts decree in favor of plaintiff hence, impugned judgment set aside and remit matter to High Court for de novo hearing of Second Appeal after giving an opportunity to all parties concerned to put forward their case.
Court has resolved to issue directions to ensure effective implementation of constitutional protections under Article 21, preventing these rights from being merely illusory hence, in accordance with Articles 32 and 142 of Constitution and Article 21s mandate, Court directs Union of India, along with all States and Union Territories.
Compensation awarded to appellant stands modified and enhanced accordingly with interest at same rate as awarded by High Court and Respondent no. 2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount before Tribunal within a period of six weeks.
Petitioners 1 to 13 are entitled to revised maximum limit for retirement-cum-death gratuity as per Government Resolution dated 1st March 2019. Kasturba Health Society must pay differential gratuity amount to these petitioners within three months of this orders communication.
Writ petition is dismissed due to non-exhaustion of alternative remedies and Petitioner retains right to approach appropriate forum, with all merits untouched for future consideration.
Impugned judgment passed by Tribunal is set aside and proceeding bearing Tenancy Revision is restored to file of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur to decide afresh in accordance with provisions of law.
Petitioner, having received his tribe validation certificate after retirement, is entitled to service benefits that were previously withheld due to absence of this certificate.
Petition seeks resolution of private rights and significant financial relief without sanctioned plan, making its invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction inappropriate hence, no illegality in issuance of Stop Work Notice dated 18th January 2024 or in order dated 1st February 2024.
Findings of Tribunal that both car driver and Loco Pilots were negligent to cause accident needs to be upheld however, Railways is held responsible for accident @ 75% and car driver is held responsible for accident @25%
Appellants do not qualify for discretionary relief of specific performance, as they failed to demonstrate both readiness and willingness and did not approach Court promptly, which disqualifies them from receiving this equitable relief.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer