Search Results for "City Civil and Sessions Court"

1336 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1336 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Appeal Against Acquittal of Doctors in Medical Negligence Case. Prosecution Failed to Prove Gross Negligence or Culpable Homicide Under Sections 304, 304-A, 201, 176, 314, 197 r/w 34 IPC and Section 33(2) of Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22nd November 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Male...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Husband for Murder of Wife Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Chain of Circumstances Including Last Seen Together, Motive, and Recovery of Weapon Held Sufficient to Prove Guilt Under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

The appellant, Vijay Bubasaheb Kakade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 29 November 2017 for the murder of his wife Suman ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Petition in Income Tax Recovery Proceedings. Notice under Rule 73 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961 for civil imprisonment does not attract Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner, Shri M A Zahid, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony of Interested Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder of Kamlakar Sonawane set aside as sole eyewitness was a close relative with material contradictions and no independent corroboration.

The appellant, Yuvraj Janardhan Londhe, was convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petitioners' Challenge to Trial Court Orders in Suit for Possession. Court upholds refusal to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and appointment of commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to identify suit property.

The petitioners, S. Ramaiah, S. Siddappa, and S. Nanjappa, claimed to be owners of agricultural lands measuring 7 acres and 10 guntas in Nagarbhavi vi...