Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
The petitioner alleged that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had relied upon the decision of Vidarbha Industries, which even though was clarified in review petition of Axis Bank but was still contrary to the settled position in law laid down in Innoventive Industries. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General contended that the principle enunciated in Vidarbha Industries would be liable to dilute the substratum of the Code.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Kerala High Court denied the grant of maintenance to an unmarried Hindu major daughter as she could not prove any disability as required under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
There should be no scope for the declarant to escape on the technical grounds from responsibility attached to the statement made by him in the affidavit. Unless those compliances, referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 of chapter VII of the Criminal Manual are complied with, it will be difficult to hold the person making a declaration on oath responsible for the statement made on an oath.
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
Allahabad High Court has held that the Trial Court has, after analysing the entire facts and evidence have concluded that there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused, and thus has rejected the discharge application. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
