Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21 R. 95: Starting point of limitation application under Or. 21 R. 95, by auction-purchaser for
“Demand for dowry should be the continuing cause for the death of the married women. Cruelty can be mental, or it can be physical. Every instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman.”
Section 112 of the Evidence Act underscores the principle that children born within the confines of a legally recognized marriage are deemed legitimate per se and it ensures that no unwarranted assumptions of impropriety or moral transgressions are made and instead places the burden of proof on those who contest the child’s legitimacy.
by Spenta Havewala Kapadia*
A Rundown on Law Relating to Wills, Letters of Administration, Succession Certificates and Heirship Certificates
by Siddharth R. Gupta*
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Proof — Burden and Onus of proof — Recourse to S. 106 of the Evidence Act
“Murder was committed in the convict’s house, and he attempted to burn the entire house along with the dead bodies in the dead of night which pointed fingers towards the convict alone and the same was strengthened by his post occurrence conduct”.
Bombay High Court clarified that the instant case was one based on dying declaration which may solely be made the basis of conviction after qualifying the test of truthfulness, voluntariness and free from suspicion and doubt.
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.
Rajasthan High Court observed that the DNA Paternity Test requires to be conducted only in exceptional cases, and therefore, the child cannot be used as a weapon to get divorce on ground of adultery, on the strength of outcome of a DNA Paternity Test.
by Aayushi Singh† and Pavitra Dubey††
The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case did not pass the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.
Supreme Court said that the degree or dimension of the offence should not be the direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused or convict.
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
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.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 33 — Power of modification of award under — Scope of: Award can be modified
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of