Judgments
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH
These appeals raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of a proviso contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously together. However, if this is not possible then it is settled law that where there is a conflict between two Sections, and you cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision Full Judgment
DHIRENDRA KUMAR @ DHIROO Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND
As far as reliability of evidence on record is concerned, we are of the view that re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in absence of patent illegality or perversity merely because a different view could also be taken. Question whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 has to be decided from Full Judgment
TEJRAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
The decision of this appeal will rest on the answers to the following two questions : (i) Reliability of DD Exhibit 45 recorded by PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari PW 4 made by deceased Savita; (ii) Admissibility and reliability of DDs made by Prabhabai recorded by SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut Exhibit 41) and PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (Exhibit 43). However, the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the DD and that the statement was faithfully recorded and was otherwise reliable. Full Judgment
ASSISTANT G.M. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Vs. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY
M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the Full Judgment
BATHIDA DEV. AUTH. FORMERLY KNOWN AS (PUDA) Vs. IQBAL SINGH AND ORS
This Appeal assails the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and declared that the acquisition had lapsed for the reason that the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, not paid. This is sufficient ground for protection under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Appeal is dismissed in the above terms. Full Judgment
RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.
In light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Full Judgment
AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense interpretation so as to fulfill the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb's case followed by the judgment of Kulwant Singh do not state the law correctly. We, therefore, Full Judgment
BADRU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
The Doctrine of parity cannot replace the substantive evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses mentioned above, who have been believed concurrently by the courts below. The evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses is clear - this is not a case of sudden provocation and the mere absence of motive does not bring home the lesser charge. The appeal Full Judgment
GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN. Vs. RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI & ANR.
Amrit Lal Paw Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Others
BANK OF SHARJAH Vs. JOPLIN OVERSEAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD AND ANR
SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such Full Judgment