Court Judgments - May 2008
Madhuban v State of U.P. 5/5/2008.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - sections
302, 323 and 394 - conviction - confirmed by High Court -
appeal - it appears that the learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant before the High Court could not make oral submissions
because of infection in vocal cord -
Tarakanath Kar v Lipika Kar 7/5/2008.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 125
- application filed by respondent Lipika - case transferred
- Chandana filed application for being impleaded - in the
subsequent order dated 5.7.2006 the High Court highlighted the limited
jurisdiction for rectification/modification under Section 362 of the
T.Thimmaiah (D) By Lrs. v Venkatachala Raju (D) BY
Cr.P.C. Order 47 Rule 1 - order made
in review - challenged - from a bare perusal of the judgment in
review, it is clear that the principles laid down under Order 47 Rule 1
of the CPC have been completely ignored - we, however, give
liberty to the respondent herein to challenge the judgment dated 16th
February 1999, if so advised.
Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v Mahant
Ram Niwas & another 12/5/2008.
Code of Civil Procedure - order II
Rule 2 - Res Judicata - principals - applicability of.
Ramachandran v R. Udhayakumar & others
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
section 482 - prayer for directory the respondent to withdraw the
litigation - and to entrust the same to the file of Central Bureau of
Investigation - the direction of the High Court for
re-investigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible.-
Amol Singh v State of M.P. 15/15/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302
and 34 - conviction and sentence - the discrepancies, make
the last declaration doubtful. The nature of the inconsistencies is such
that there are certainly material. That being so, it would be unsafe to
convict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and appellant is
acquitted of the charges. -
Illa Roy Chowdhury V Shyamali Das and others
Act, 1894 - sections 30 and 31
- an application for reference under - an attempt on the part of the
First Respondent to get herself imp leaded as party in the Reference
Petition did not fructify. The said order attained finality. It does not
appear that the said respondent was not sure as to whether such an
application had been filed or not - what would be the effect of the
order of the Calcutta High Court allowing the First Respondent to file
an appropriate application before the Collector for reference in terms
of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act which was a conditional order - no
fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to proceed
pursuant to the observations made by the learned Single Judge. -
v A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & others 27/5/2008.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - section 13(1)(e) - petition under - customary
divorce - registered - permanent alimony received by the wife - there
does not exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under
Section 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be imposed
therefore is seven years-
New York -
Lawyers In America