ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(61) SARDAR BASHIRKHAN PATHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 11-08-2023
Both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, hence, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. Both the appellants are original accused Nos.l and 2 respectively, who faced trial in Sessions Case No.110 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they have been held guilt under those Sections by
India Law Library Docid # 1603485

(62) BHARAT LAL SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 04-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 7A - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 120-B - Quashment of FIR - Illegal gratification - To attract the mischief of Section 7 of the Act, the act of demand etc. must have connection with the discharge of public duty by the public servant - If the public servant has not been assigned with the public duty as claimed by the complainant, the offence under Section 7 of the Act would not be attract
India Law Library Docid # 1603584

(63) SANJAY SINGHAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-07-2023
Closure of coaching centers in Delhi - All coaching centers in Delhi without a valid no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire services department is immediately closed - If a coaching centre is not conforming to the norms as per the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (MPD, 2021), it has to be shut down and there is no other alternative - Delhi Government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) are directed to close down all the coaching centres which are running in contravention of the MPD, 2021 -
India Law Library Docid # 1603392

(64) ANAND PRAKASH AADTANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 22-06-2023
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 - Murder - Nature of the injiuries shows that the repeated blows are given on vital parts which resulted into rupture of the lungs - It was certainly an act by taking advantage of the situation. The injuries are inflicted with such a force to endeavour to end the life of the deceased - While giving the blows, no remorse is shown towards the deceased - It was certainly an act with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased - If the evidence of the witne
India Law Library Docid # 2400016

(65) AMRITLAL AGARIYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR] 20-06-2023

India Law Library Docid # 1603443

(66) M.C. PANNEERSELVAM Vs. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER / GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 12-06-2023
The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Electrical Pumps Man in the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 30.04.1991 (C -Grade Employee). Alleging that he along with one Ranjan - Junior Engineer and Ramamoorthy - Contractor have demanded and received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe amount on 09.07.2009 from one Praballa Kumar of Kodambakkam, Chennai, subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail after three days. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspe
India Law Library Docid # 1872223

(67) MANGALANATHA DURAI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 08-06-2023
This Criminal Revision is before us consequent upon a reference made by Honble Mr.Justice G.Ilangovan, who noted conflicting views that were expressed by various Honble Judges of this Court on the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 to damage caused to private property in certain circumstances.
India Law Library Docid # 1872108

(68) V. SUNDARARAJ Vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 08-06-2023
The challenge in W.P.(MD)No.17210 of 2022 is to the notification dated 17.07.2022, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member in the District Consumer Redressal Commission in the State of Tamil Nadu.
India Law Library Docid # 1872209

(69) THE SECRETARY Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 08-06-2023
According to the petitioner, they are owned and administered by a registered trust namely Diocese of Marthandam vide Document No. 123(IV), dated 23.10.1997 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. According to them, the said Diocese is running 478 institutions. In order to provide professional education on teaching to the people belonging to the Christian Community, the petitioner college was started in the year 2006. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE
India Law Library Docid # 1872215

(70) THE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY-CUM AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. M. MOHAMED SIDDIQUE & CO. AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 07-06-2023
The respondents herein have filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order of the appellants 1 and 2 withholding the document bearing No.18 of 2014 on the ground that sufficient stamp duty has not been paid. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and the third respondent in the writ petition was directed to release the document, if it is otherwise in order.
India Law Library Docid # 1872207

(71) S.R. TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE Vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 07-06-2023
The petitioner is a registered public trust. It is running a hospital in the name of Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai. It entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with one Sunmed Healthcare Private Limited, Madurai which offered to build a new hospital in the land adjacent to the trust hospital. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.04.2019 was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Othakadai. After presenting the document for registration, the parties t
India Law Library Docid # 1872224

(72) THE KENNEL CLUB OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 06-06-2023
The Kennel Club of India (KCI), The Madras Canine Club (MCC) and C.R.Balakrishna Bhat are the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Their prayer in common, is for a Certiorarified Mandamus quashing Notification No.3/2015-2020 dated 25.04.2016. They also seek a direction to R1 and R2, being the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry and Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) (hereinafter referred to as R1 and R2/DGFT respectively) not to prevent dog lovers from lawfully importing dogs in
India Law Library Docid # 1872225

(73) S. RAJA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 06-06-2023
The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF for the sake of brevity) on 01.08.1992. Subsequently, he passed the departmental examination and was directly appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector Clerk cum Typist in CISF on 27.01.2011. Thereafter, he was transferred to various places and lastly, he was functioning as ASI Clerk. Apart from the above duty it was also in-cha
India Law Library Docid # 1872227

(74) V. VANDHANA AND OTHERS Vs. VIJAYASEKARAN AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 05-06-2023
The suit properties originally belonged to one Ayyappa Naicker who was holding the same as ancestral. Ayyappa Naicker and his only son by name Duraisamy Naidu divided the suit properties among the family members who are coparceners by virtue of a partition deed, dated 11.05.1967, which is registered as Doc.No.2345/1967 on the file of SubRegistrars Office, Udumalpet. As per the said partition deed, A-Schedule to the deed was alloted to the share of Ayyappa Naicker for life and defendants 1 and 2,
India Law Library Docid # 1872288

(75) JOSEPH JAYASEELAN Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 02-06-2023
On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner/defacto complainant, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.571 of 2016 against the second respondent/accused on 06.08.2016 for the offences under Sections 409, 468, 474 and 477A IPC. The first respondent police, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 391 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai. When the trial was in progress, the above petition und
India Law Library Docid # 1872110

(76) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. NAGEENA AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 02-06-2023
The instant appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as 'Act of 1988') arise out of the judgment and award dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (afterwards referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.06/2017, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,97,175/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 20.12.2016.
India Law Library Docid # 1873525

(77) PREMNARAYAN Vs. MUKUL MISHRA AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 02-06-2023
Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that appellant Premnarayan sustained injuries in the motor accident on 08.09.2015 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. RJ14-CJ-9830 and as the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with respondent No.3 - Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
India Law Library Docid # 1873526

(78) JAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 02-06-2023
The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as 'Act of 1988') has been filed by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (afterwards referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.81/2000, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 09.08.2000.
India Law Library Docid # 1873545

(79) RUPARAM Vs. SULOCHANA RAJPUROHIT AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 02-06-2023

India Law Library Docid # 1873546

(80) T. RAJAKUMAR Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISONS AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 01-06-2023
The Petitioner was appointed as a Selection Grade Assistant in Coimbatore Central Prison and was dealing with R2 Section and the same was assigned with effect from 07.03.2003. It was clarified by the 1st Respondent on 05.05.2003 that R1 Assistant and R5 Junior Assistant should deal the affairs of high security prisoners and R2 Assistant, R3, R4 and R6 Junior Assistants should deal with the affairs of all prisoners except high security prisoners. The charges were framed by the 1st Respondent on t
India Law Library Docid # 1872220