Judgments
ANIL KUMAR ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
K R MANGALAM WORLD SCHOOL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
DR CHANDRA BAROOAH VS ASSAM SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL & ORS
KIM STEEL STRIPS PVT LTD. AND ANR Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
The Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. Dabra Vs. Rama Erection Pvt. Ltd. & Others.
Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, prescribes time limit for presentation of an executed document for registration, but it does not prescribe any time limit for Registering Authority to register or refuse registration of such document. Full Judgment
Sangram & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon for conviction. (2) Some discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses which does not affect the case cannot be the basis for rejection of the evidence. Full Judgment
Mahipalsingh and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On Full Judgment
RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means Full Judgment