Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Even if the ticket was not recovered from his person while preparing the inquest report of the deceased, mere filing of the affidavit on behalf of the appellant was sufficient to raise the presumption that the deceased was bona fide passenger.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on partial partition.
“Even assuming the recorded consumption to be lesser than the average computed consumption of electricity, it can at best raise a doubt against the respondent; it cannot act as a proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold that the respondent has dishonestly tampered with the meter.”
Gauhati HC opined that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden to prove the contents of her evidence so as to establish her Indian citizenship.
“The accused has miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant”
Supreme Court said that the burden was on the appellant more particularly in a circumstance when all the family members had got administered the same vaccination from the same source and the appellant himself did not undergo any difficulty when the first two doses were administered.
“The appellants/plaintiffs are to prove their own case and they cannot bank upon the laches on the part of the respondent/defendants.”
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
“Questioning the honesty of a person is the worst form of accusation and the same can have a serious detrimental effect on the reputation of a person. It would harm the reputation of any person, and especially an advocate, in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. There is no doubt that such a statement is per se defamatory.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained that to be ‘substantial’, a question of law must
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil
Supreme Court: In an interesting case, where a man was convicted for murder of his younger brother, the bench of Sanjiv Khanna*
Allahabad High Court Disability In a case where an employee of Central Bank of India petitioned to be exempted from routine transfers
On June 14th 2022, a leading newspaper had published an article with the headline “Illegitimate child of cohabiting couple to get assets
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed against
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Sameer Jain, JJ. allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the
Supreme Court: In an issue relating to the alleged gift deed by an old illiterate woman, the bench of MR Shah and
XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Manjunatha, XVII Addl. C.M.M., found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of
“We are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it.”