Search Results for "demand without acceptance"

774 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 774 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as sole interested witness's testimony insufficient without independent corroboration.

The appellant, Zaverilal Ramjibhai Gala, was a Chief Engineer with Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) and was convicted by the Special Judge (ACB), Kutch...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Kashinath Shiru Ahire, was a maintenance surveyor in the Land Record office at Sindkheda, District Dhule. He was convicted by the Speci...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Tax Collector in Bribery Case Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Demand of Illegal Gratification for Issuing Tax Demand Notice Proved Through Trap and Recovery of Tainted Currency Notes.

The appellant, Dayaram s/o Balram Kuthe, was a Tax Collector with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The complainant, Dharamraj Natthuji Madankar, cons...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Sanjay s/o Ishwar Bhanushali, was convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai for offences under S...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Against Forfeiture of Earnest Money in Toll Collection Tender Dispute. Variation in Contract Period from 90 Weeks to 52 Weeks Constitutes Counter-Offer, Not Acceptance, Thus Forfeiture Invalid.

The petitioner, M/s Abhay Construction, a partnership firm, submitted a tender to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. for collecti...