Judiciary | PCS-J | CLAT | CUET LLM | AIBE


Гео и язык канала: Индия, Английский
Категория: Право


Here we'll be providing notes, PDFs and other materials related to the field of law. 👨‍⚖️
For collab, promo and objections, contact @trekmaster

Связанные каналы  |  Похожие каналы

Гео и язык канала
Индия, Английский
Категория
Право
Статистика
Фильтр публикаций


The Court interpreted Section 256 Cr.P.C. to mean that acquittal under this section is warranted only when the complainant is absent on the date which was set for the appearance of the accused. If the date was set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused, the absence of the complainant on such a date will not warrant the acquittal of the accused.

“What, therefore, assumes importance for invoking Section 256, Cr. PC is the purpose for which the case is fixed. If the date is not appointed for appearance of the accused but for some other purpose, like in the present case, acquittal of the accused does not necessarily follow as the logical result of absence of the complainant.


Case Title: RANJIT SARKAR VS. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS


President Ought To Seek Supreme Court's Opinion When Governor Reserves Bill On Ground Of Unconstitutionality: SC


Whenever, in exercise of the powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, a bill is reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of patent unconstitutionality that are of such a nature so as to cause peril to the principles of representative democracy, the President, must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action. Therefore, as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this Court in exercise of his powers under Article 143 of the Constitution.










https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/president-ought-to-seek-supreme-courts-opinion-when-governor-reserves-bill-on-ground-of-unconstitutionality-sc-289313


While quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case against a husband and in-laws of the wife, the Supreme Court again cautioned about the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord.

Also, the Court criticized the growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family.


2641820092024-11-21-572379.pdf
361.4Кб
The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, then she cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.

The property possessed by a Hindu woman will transform into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) only if it was based on any pre-existing right or in lieu of maintenance, the Court explained. However, when the deed itself gives a limited life interest in the property, it will not transform into absolute ownership. This aspect is clear from Section 14(2) of the Act, the Court noted.


1178920192024-12-06-575180.pdf
277.2Кб
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for committing murder who, out of a scuffle, inflicted serious injury on vital parts of the deceased body with lethal weapons.

Referring to clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, the Court said lacking intention to commit murder is irrelevant, and the accused would still be held guilty for committing murder if he causes a bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to result in death in the ordinary course of nature.


462_captain_manjit_singh_virdi_v_hussain_mohammed_shattaf_18_may.pdf
311.9Кб
The Court noted that it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of hearing on the charges, entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if no offence is made out, then only an accused can be discharged.

The Court observed:

“Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.”


















Chhattisgarh Preliminary Examination has been postponed.




Delhi APP


20250318264032171.pdf
112.2Кб
• No candidate has qualified for the Viva-voce in UK higher judiciary.

लोअर ज्यूडिशियरी में दुनिया भर के नियम लगा देंगे और हायर ज्यूडिशियरी में किसी को लेंगे नहीं।




700020242025-02-19-587623.pdf
376.6Кб
When Second FIR Can Be Registered : Supreme Court Outlines Key Circumstances

Показано 20 последних публикаций.
OSZAR »