Search Results for "hyper technical mistake"

61 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 61 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Amendment of Plaint in Property Dispute — No New Cause of Action Introduced. Amendment seeking to add details of alternate accommodation agreement and electricity disconnection allowed as it clarifies existing claim without changing the nature of the suit.

The petitioner, Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd, challenged an order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the learned trial judge allowing Chamber Summons No....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Convicts in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC. High Court's affirmation of life imprisonment upheld based on eyewitness testimony and discovery of weapons, despite challenges to evidence reliability.

The appeal arose from a murder conviction where two appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 8, 10, 12 of POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC set aside as victim's evidence was unreliable and medical evidence did not support sexual assault.

The appellant, Pravin Narayan Khole, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Special (Child) Case No.9/2014 for offences under Sectio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses. Conviction under Sections 302 and 506 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Rahul Limbaji Thorat, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, for the murder of his wife Vandana under Sections 302 a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition for Condonation of Delay in Investment Under Section 54EC of Income Tax Act, 1961 — CBDT's Rejection Set Aside. The CBDT's power under Section 119(2)(b) is not circumscribed by any time limit and must be exercised liberally to avoid hardship.

The petitioner, Dr. Sujatha Ramesh, sold an immovable property during the Assessment Year 2013-14 and realized long-term capital gains. To claim exemp...