Search Results for "Section 37(4)"

629 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 629 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration — Conviction under Sections 302, 148, 449 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

The case arises from a murder that occurred on 23.09.2013 at about 9.00 p.m. in a village under Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District. The d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows EPF Recovery Over Bank's Mortgage in Priority Dispute Under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. EPF Dues Have Priority Over Secured Creditors Under Section 11 of EPF Act, 1952.

The case involves three writ appeals arising from orders of a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.15582 of 2010 and 8686 of 2010 dated 21.06.2011. The app...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Executing Court's Refusal to Reopen Partition Decree Based on Will. Executing Court Cannot Go Behind a Final Decree to Redetermine Shares on Basis of Alleged Will Produced After Decree Became Absolute.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Executing Court rejecting an application for framing of issues and modifi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Unreliable Circumstantial Links. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

The appellant, Ashok, was convicted by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi, in Sessions Case No.94/2015 for...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC set aside as prosecution witnesses turned hostile and medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged assault.

The appellant, Sri Muniraju, was convicted by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF) in Sessions Case No.147/2016 for ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 366A and 376 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

The appellant, Rudresh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga in S.C.No.23/2011 for offences under Sections 3...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Municipal Corporation's Demolition Notice Under Section 55 of MRTP Act — Appellant's Possession Based on Census Certificate and Prior Withdrawal of Notice Under Section 354A of MMC Act Entitled to Interim Protection.

The appellant, Anil Sitaram Dubey, filed an appeal against an order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 26 September 2016, which refused to grant a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Rejection of Withdrawal of Suit Under Section 50 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — Petitioner Failed to Show Sufficient Cause for Withdrawal of Suit Filed in Representative Capacity.

The petitioner, Prabhakar Waktuji Sapate, filed three writ petitions challenging an order dated 21.1.2016 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Orders on Territorial Jurisdiction and Interim Relief. Held that DRT Ahmedabad had jurisdiction to entertain the bank's recovery application and that the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief was justified.

The petitioner, M/s. GTCL Mobile-Com Technology Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, challenged two orders: (1) an order dated 14-11...