Search Results for "Notice under Section 45(2)"

253 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 253 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Family Clash Case, Extends Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to Appellant. Conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, 323 IPC Affirmed but Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone Considering Settlement in Cross Case.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had partly allowed the appeal of the appellant Ramesh, affirm...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Companies Act Case — Acquittal Set Aside for Non-Prosecution of Director. Section 452 of Companies Act, 2013 requires that a director must be prosecuted for the company's default; acquittal of director without trial on merits is illegal.

The appellant, M/s. P.M. Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the respondent, T. Manohar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Seven Appellants in Murder Case Due to Unlawful Assembly and Common Objection Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC set aside as evidence failed to establish membership of unlawful assembly or common object to commit murder.

The case involves seven appeals filed by Ganpat Bapu Salunkhe, Shahaji Vasant Patil, Vinodsingh Shamsingh Rawat, Chandrakant Dhodiba Tikone, Appa Suba...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Holds Police Cannot Seize Immovable Property Under Section 102 CrPC. The expression 'any property' in Section 102(1) CrPC means only movable property, and immovable property cannot be seized by police during investigation.

The Supreme Court in this judgment resolved a long-standing conflict of opinion in the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 102 o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Security Deposit Dispute. Court upholds arbitrator's finding that the amount was a refundable security deposit and not a loan, rejecting challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioners, A. S. Patel Trust and its trustees, challenged an arbitral award dated 12 October 2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concil...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in 1992 Riots Case Due to Unreliable Identification and Delayed FIR. Conviction under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapon set aside as identification parade was not conducted and FIR was lodged 10 days after incident.

The appellant, Abdul Gani Kamruddin Mulla, was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Culpable Homicide and House Trespass in Fatal Assault Case. Appellant convicted under Sections 304-II and 452 IPC for causing death by kicking a heart patient after entering his house without permission.

The appellant, Amar Singh Rathod, was convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, for offences under Sections 304-II and 452 of the Indian...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Under Section 454 Cr.P.C. — Sets Aside Confiscation of Rs. 25 Lakhs Deposited by Witness. Confiscation Order Held Without Authority of Law as Money Was Deposited Under Mistaken Order, Not as Fine or Penalty.

The appellant, Shamshad Ahamed, was a witness (PW-122) in a criminal trial (S.C. No. 430 of 2002) involving 33 accused charged with various offences u...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree — Court Receiver Need Not Seek Separate Leave to Sue When Appointed with Full Powers Under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC. Notice Under Section 106 T.P. Act Demanding Immediate Possession Is Not Invalid If Suit Filed After Notice Period.

The plaintiff, the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court in Suit No.234 of 1987, was the receiver of the suit property 'Dev Ashish' at Peddar Roa...