Judgments
STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PD. YADAV @ RAJBALLABH YADAV
RAMESH VERMA(D) TR.LRS. Vs. LAJESH SAXENA (D) BY LRS & ANR.
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. Vs. M/S. APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD.
AMARSANG NATHAJI AS HIMSELF AND AS KARTA AND MANAGER Vs. HARDIK HARSHADBHAI PATEL AND ORS
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement Full Judgment
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR ETC ETC.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, Full Judgment
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH AND ORS.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECREATARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Vs. VIKAS GUPTA AND ORS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTM Vs. RATHI STEELS LTD AND ORS
RAMESH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
K.V. PRAKASH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REENA KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Vs. M/S. GREEN FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
LOK PRAHARI THR.ITS GNRL.SECY,S.N.SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ORS.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS Vs. ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASS.
RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH DHANBAD Vs. EMP. IN RELATION TO MANG. OF KEND.C.&ORS
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
PRESI. SECY, J.K.SYNTS.MAZ.UN.,KOTA&ANR Vs. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT.LTD & ORS.
BAIJNATH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M P
(38) A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to Full Judgment