Showing : 651-660 of 2939 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Suit for declaration of ownership - Plaintiff not in possession - Suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of recovery of possession...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, 34, 386, 365, 212-- Anticipatory bail - Offence u/ss 306, 34, 386, 365, 212 IPC - Petitioner named in the FIR - Overt act attributed to petitioner - Nature and gravity of the offences in question, shows that it was not a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail - Bail rejected...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 50-- Restoration of land - Once factum of ownership of petitioners much less parentage or inheritance has been denied, it was incumbent upon petitioners to lay claim by seeking declaration u/S.34 of Specific Relief Act, by leading evidence u/S.50 of Evidence Act and thereafter, could have staked claim..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34-- Common intention - Merely because two accused were armed, it cannot be said that they both are responsible of murder of deceased - Accused killed the deceased in exercise of his right of private defence - Co-accused may or may not have acted out of desire to protect accused - He did not share same..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 325, 149, 34-- Murder - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons attacked the complainant and caused injuries to others who came to his rescue - Attack made by accused does not show that there was common object of murder amongst the accused - No..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 406, 34, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 300, 256-- Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal in default for want of prosecution - Tantamounts to acquittal - FIR registered u/ss 420, 406, 34 IPC on the same facts - Accused is not liable to be tried again for the same offence u/s 138 of NI Act in relation to dishonour of cheque which formed the basis of..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 406, 34, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 300, 256-- Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal in default for want of prosecution - Tantamounts to acquittal - FIR registered u/ss 420, 406, 34 IPC on the same facts - Merely because in the complaint u/s 138 NI Act, the facts which constitute offences u/s 406/420 IPC may have been laid out, it does not follow..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 406, 34, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 300, 256-- Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal in default for want of prosecution - Tantamounts to acquittal - FIR registered u/ss 420, 406, 34 IPC on the same facts - Even if accused was tried in respect of one of the charges, namely, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and even if he is taken to have been..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 39-- Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction - Auction - Highest bid - Bid never accepted by concerned authorities - There was no concluded contract - Merely on the granting the declaration that rejection was illegal and arbitrary and by incompetent authority, further relief of mandatory..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3-- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen together - All prosecution witnesses have candidly deposed that both accused persons were habitual drunkard and late-comers and were engaged under contract of deceased - Even, witnesses have also narrated that both accused persons has made verbal..........

Showing : 651-660 of 2939 Results