Search Results for "minor error"

2219 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2219 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Proof of Age. Conviction under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Establish Victim's Age Below 18 and Consent Was Voluntary.

The appellant, Parvesh Bagde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offences under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 of the Indian...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Revision in POCSO Case — Probation Report Can Be Called Even Under POCSO Act. Section 4(1)(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is Not Barred by POCSO Act, 2012.

The applicant, Nishant Harishchandra Salvi, was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Pr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

WRIT PETITION NOs. 4198 2005, 564 2009, 804 2002,

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Declaration and Possession Suit — Substantial Question of Law Not Pressed. Amendment to plaint seeking both declaration and recovery of possession renders the framed question of law infructuous.

The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Allows Appeal in Adoption Dispute — Adoption Deed Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Section 11 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Actual Giving and Taking of Child Not Proved, Rendering Adoption Invalid.

The appellant, Smt. Parvathamma, filed a suit in O.S.No.277/1989 before the Principal Munsiff and JMFC, Tumkur, seeking a declaration that the first r...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholding Concurrent Findings of Fact. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC as the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse.

The case involves a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff...