CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2005
12 Apr 2013The case arose from Special Case No. 10 of 2001 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, where eight accused faced trial on charges of kidnap...
Search Results for "section 16(2)"
1352 result(s) found
Found 1352 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Tribunal Erred in Rejecting Claim Under Section 163A M.V. Act on Ground of Contributory Negligence. Claimants Entitled to Compensation Under Structured Formula Without Proof of Negligence.
5 Nov 2018The appeal was filed by the claimants, the wife and children of the deceased Shantaram, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2012 passed by ...
- 74
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition for Power Grid, Reduces Development Deduction from 50% to 20%. Market Value Determined at Rs.260 per sq. ft. Based on Comparable Sale Deed Under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
20 Oct 2016The case involves two appeals arising from a common judgment and award dated 6.2.2016 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalko...
- 92
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Examines Appeals Concerning Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, Addressing Safety and Regulatory Measures Under Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The Court Deliberates on Balancing National Energy Policy with Public Apprehensions Stemming from Past Nuclear Incidents.
1 Jan 1970The case centers on appeals related to the establishment of a nuclear power plant at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu. The judgment begins by acknowledging th...
- 42
Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears cross appeals against National Commission's compensation order in medical negligence death case — all parties challenge quantum and liability apportionment. The core legal issue concerns the adequacy of income proof, necessity of deductions for living expenses and taxes, and the reliance on foreign expert testimony for determining pecuniary loss.
1 Aug 2026The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redress...
- 78
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. Failure to Move Resolution in Special Meeting Renders Motion Invalid and Attracts Bar Under Section 35(3-A) Against Fresh Motion for One Year.
9 Nov 2023The petitioners, Savita Shrimant Ghule (Sarpanch) and Ganesh Vishnu Hagawne (Upa-Sarpanch) of Grampanchayat Ukkadgaon, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur...
- 60
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Murder Based on Extra-Judicial Confession in Live-in Relationship Case. Court holds that extra-judicial confession, if credible and corroborated, can form the basis of conviction under Section 302 IPC.
10 Feb 2025The appellant, Ramu Appa Mahapatar, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Manda, with whom he was in a live-in relationship. The prose...
- 878
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Eating House License for Violation of Natural Justice. Licensee Not Present During Alleged Obscene Acts; Suspension Without Notice and Hearing Set Aside Under Bombay Police Act, 1951.
23 Nov 2011The petitioner, Ramarai Rammilan Rai, was a co-licensee of an eating house known as 'Missile Restaurant and Bar' in Goregaon, Mumbai, holding a licens...
- 94
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Wakf Property Dispute Due to Res Judicata Bar from Prior Representative Suit and Compromise Decree. The Court Held That a Judgment in a Representative Suit Under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Binds All Interested Parties Under Explanation IV to Section 11, and a Compromise Decree Precludes Re-agitation of Title Issues, Affirming Lower Court Decisions.
23 Sep 2021The dispute centered on a property claimed as wakf by the Jamia Masjid Gubbi, represented by its President, against defendants including successors of...
- 275
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act for Confiscation of Essential Commodities — Mere Seizure of Essential Commodities Not Sufficient for Confiscation Without Mens Rea. The Court held that Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires mens rea for confiscation of seized essential commodities, and mere seizure without proof of intentional violation of control order does not justify confiscation.
1 Aug 2019The present reference arose from an order dated 16/03/2019 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Application ...
- 212
