Walking is a fundamental constitutional right, empowering citizens to seek legal restitution against local duty bearers for failing to provide footpaths.
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be adjudicated on the touchstone of preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case involves charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation, described as minor offences with no significant societal impact and extended delay is deemed unjust, particularly concerning public servant, leading to decision that prosecution should not continue any further.
Land, small in size and strategically located near Dr. Ambedkars statue, further emphasizes its significance for public purposes hence, challenge raised to acquisition in question fails.
Review of Government Resolution dated 14th July 2021 confirms that newly introduced restriction on land conversion operates only prospectively, as there is no retroactive application specified.
Petitioners late offer to accommodate Respondents does not rectify transfer deemed void due to fraud, coercion, or undue influence and Court, operating under Article 226, doesnt engage in factual reappraisal without manifest errors, finding no grounds for interference.
Family asserted that they belong to Sonkoli community, declaring that no transfer occurred hence, States mutation entries were also contested, revealing that S.D.O.s order, initiated against deceased person, was jurisdictionally flawed and rendered nullity.
Petitioner should not be deprived of service benefits due to delayed certificate validation and clauses in Administrative Circular No.446 (2013) were declared arbitrary, entitling Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees to higher grade pay from date they are due, not contingent on certificate validation.
As prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to decision to set aside trial courts judgment and conviction of accused, extending them benefit of doubt.
Petitioner is granted bail, subject to terms determined by Trial Court and Public Prosecutor may request specific conditions to safeguard interests.
Trial Court committed no error in holding accused guilty for offences charged against him and accordingly awarding sentence to him as well as High Court was also justified in upholding and confirming judgment and order of Trial court.
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.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer