May 2018

Accident–Claim Petition-involvement of Vehicle—Merely recording of FIR in itself will not be enough to prove the involvement of the vehicle especially when in the criminal proceedings, the alleged eye witness failed to identify the accused rather categorically deposed that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle

By | May 19th, 2018|Categories: Evidence - Criminal Cases|

Tribunal has not denied that according to the documents, deceased was earning approximately 3220 Canadian dollars per month but the Tribunal has only taken the dependency of 1200 dollars per month—No explanation or reasoning has been given by the Tribunal-Matter remanded back to assess the loss of dependency afresh as per material on record.                       

By | May 19th, 2018|Categories: Dependency|

Aceident–lncome of deceased-Tribunal took income as Rs. 9000/- per month—However, As per the income tax return which is for the immediate preceding financial year, the income of the deceased was Rs. 12000/- per month after deduction of income tax-Keeping in view the dependency loss has to be re-assessed, taking the income as Rs. 12,OOO/-per month

By | May 19th, 2018|Categories: Income|

Parole–Murder—Mon Completion of one year of imprisonment–Death of father of prisoner-There is no restriction under the Act for temporary release and the Rules that have been framed are not to supersede the substantive provisions of the Act—Parole of three weeks granted

By | May 17th, 2018|Categories: Parole|

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S,51–Suspension of Sarpanch—Minimum Qualification—Female Sarpanch  was suspended  on  being found not possessing minimum qualification of passing 8th class—Contention that petitioner could not put under suspension and only remedy available was election petition—Contention is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted

By | May 17th, 2018|Categories: Haryana Panchayati Raj Act|

Eviction-Non-payment of rent—Denial of relationship—As per jamabandi petitioners were landowners and respondent were paying ‘batai’/rent-Merely because in a simple civil suit for injunction and not for declaration petitioner was not found in possession; it cannot be inferred that petitioner was not the landowner

By | May 17th, 2018|Categories: Revenue Cases|

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002, S.14–Symbolic Possession-Objection by tenant being in possession for agricultural purpose—Objection held to be not maintainable

By | May 16th, 2018|Categories: Corporate cases|

Defamation—Defamatory material published in a newspaper—Liability of Owner—It must be established that the respondent is not only the owner of the newspaper but also sold or offered the newspaper for sale.  

By | May 14th, 2018|Categories: Evidence - Criminal Cases|

Eviction—Subsequent Events—It is not proved that plea of subsequent events had been raised before appellate court and High Court—Alleged subsequent event cannot be considered by Supreme Court.

By | May 11th, 2018|Categories: Haryana Rent Act|

Eviction—Question of Title—Question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit Eviction—Necessary Party—Co-owner or co-sharer of the property is not necessary party

By | May 11th, 2018|Categories: Punjab Rent Act|

A person who has been in cultivating possession of ‘Shamlat Deh’ land for more than 12 years on the date of commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 cannot be evicted there from

By | May 10th, 2018|Categories: Punjab Village Common Lands|

Murder—Last seen together—The time of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks prior to the recovery of the body-Therefore, conviction cannot be based on mere circumstance that the appellant and deceased were last seen together—Accused acquitted.

By | May 4th, 2018|Categories: Acquittal|

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.256 & S.302–Death of Complainant—Criminal complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has died—Legal heirs of deceased complainant can prosecute the complaint.   

By | May 4th, 2018|Categories: Complaint|

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 & S.34–Murder–Common Intention—Overt Act—If common intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to prove overt act or possession of weapon, to establish common intention

By | May 4th, 2018|Categories: Common Intention|