//
archives

appellate jurisdiction

This tag is associated with 883 posts

Under Art.136 of the constitution – Or.21, rule 89 C.P.C. – Duty of court to determine the amount payable by Jdr after auction done – amount determined belatedly – Jdr is not responsible – giving an opportunity to the Jdr by High court to pay the determined amount to set aside the sale – is not illegal = – SUKUMAR DE ………..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS BIMALA AUDDY & ORS. …………RESPONDENT(S) – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40909

Under Art.136 of the constitution – Or.21, rule 89 C.P.C. – Duty of court to determine the amount payable by Jdr after auction done – amount determined belatedly – Jdr is not responsible – giving an opportunity to the Jdr by High court  to pay the determined amount to set aside the sale – is … Continue reading

Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage = Badshah ….Petitioner Versus Sou.Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. …Respondents – judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40886

Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case     under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage =       the judgments of  this  Court  in  Adhav  and         Savitaben cases would apply only … Continue reading

No bail when there is a history of involvement of number of crimes and when there is possibility of tampering of witnesses = ATAMARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40881

 Grounds for cancellation of Bail :-           1. Kunwar  Singh           was involved in a number of cases including four shown  pending  in           the Gang Chart including one for murder and another for  rape.    2. Moreover           Respondent no.2 is involved … Continue reading

Contempt of Court = Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information T.C.GUPTA & ANR Vs. HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40876

Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information to the High Court may not amount to     contempt of court  – Apex court set aside the orders of High court =        .  Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to              one aspect … Continue reading

Under sec.482 of Cr.P.C. the appellant High court can dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of appellant or his lawyer – SURYA BAKSH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40879

Under sec.482 of Cr.P.C. the appellant High court can dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of appellant or his lawyer and even with out appointing amicus curiae in a routine manner in case of where the appellant after obtaining bail or exemption from surrender – escaped from appearing while the appeal was posted for … Continue reading

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act – court can convert sentence into fine but at the same time no fine should be exceed twice the cheque amount ; Sec.357(3) has no application SOMNATH SARKAR Vs. UTPAL BASU MALLICK & ANR. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40873

As per the Negotiable instrument Act – a penalty should be imposed twice the cheque amount but not more than that. Section 357(3), Cr.P.C no application in cheque bounce case. Court can impose sentence or fine or both. Appellant/ Revision court  has got jurisdiction to convert the sentence into fine = The lower court sentenced 6 months imprisonment … Continue reading

Bar Licence – not granted = SOMDEV KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF W.B. & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40865

Bar Licence – not  granted =   Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New  Sites       and Grant of License for Retail  Sale  of  Liquor  and  Certain  Other       Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2003”),       as amended in the year 2004. … Continue reading

sec. 354 outrage the modesty of women is to be considered stringy, no lenient view – Ajahar Ali … Appellant VERSUS State of West Bengal … Respondent published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40857

Sec. 354 outrage the modesty of women is to be considered stringy, no lenient view should be taken while granting punishment – Due to delay of 18 years, the accused is not entitled  to any benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – No lenient view       The provisions of Section 354 … Continue reading

Service matter = Doctrine of proportionality in punishment= Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Ors. ….Appellants Vs. J.Hussain ….Respondent – published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40856

Service matter =  Doctrine of proportionality in punishment –  Enter office forcibly in intoxication mood – removed from service – correct –     the High Court has found the penalty of removal from  service  to   be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of his misconduct.  Thus, –       invoking the doctrine … Continue reading

Service matter = U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another … Appellants Versus Virendra Lal (Dead) through L.Rs. …Respondents= published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40846

Since the penalty was imposed by Board itself which is an appellant authority, it’s orders are not correct as per the regulations of Electricity Act as the employee was deprived of his appeal right    ; = whereby the  Division Bench has affirmed the judgment dated 23.9.2010 passed by the  State  Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, (for short “the tribunal”) … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,167 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com