Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that Section 243 of the CrPC nowhere bars the investigating officer of cross-case to appear on behalf of accused in the case in which he is a complainant.
“Debt acknowledgment in balance sheets and OTS proposal demonstrated Corporate Debtor’s awareness of assignment, rendering technical challenges unfounded.”
“When the testimonies of the eye-witnesses suffer from fatal flaws, to sustain conviction on the basis of such unreliable evidence would surely amount to miscarriage of justice”
Calcutta High Court noted that the victim was a minor on the date of the alleged suicide, which prima facie invoked Section 305 of the IPC.
The Patna High Court held that the trial in the POCSO case was vitiated as it was commenced, conducted, and concluded in just one working day, in violation of principles of natural justice and in disregard to the provisions of CrPC. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh trial.
The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by the applicants for quashing the proceedings and setting aside the bail
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dinesh Singh (Member), disposed of a case centered
Allahabad High Court: Ram Krishna Gautam, J., dismissed this Application moved under Section 482 CrPC for being devoid of merits. Counsel for
Gauhati High Court: Reiterating that mere likelihood of suspicion cannot be a reason to charge someone for an offence, Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Anshuman Sakle, Partner, Dhruv Rajain, Senior Associate and Balaji Venkatakrishnan, Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
Cite as: (2019) PL (Comp. L) February 82
Supreme Court of Canada: A five-judge Bench comprising of Wagner CJ and Abella, Côté, Rowe and Martin , JJ. while hearing Crown’s
Supreme Court of Canada: This appeal was filed before a 5-Judge Bench comprising of Wagner, CJ. Abella, Cote, Rowe and Martin, JJ.,