Log In


Join Now | Lost Password?

AI Search (NEW)

My Bookmarks

  • Your favorites will be here.

Trending

  • “Best-evidence rule”

    NPA – Incorrect to presume that once an NPA is always an NPA  – Prudential Norms and Master Circular issued by RBI

    26 shares
    Share 10 Tweet 7
  • [SC] HMA S. 13(1)(i-a) – Subsequent conduct during the pendency of judicial proceedings  – Continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition

    25 shares
    Share 10 Tweet 6
  • CPC O. 7 R. 11(a) – Limitation – When a suit Ex facie indicates that it is barred by the law of limitation courts are bound to terminate the suit so as to avoid wastage the judicial time and to avoid inconvenience and hardship to  the parties.

    25 shares
    Share 10 Tweet 6
  • Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Alienation of – Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained

    30 shares
    Share 12 Tweet 8
  • CPC O. 9 R. 13 – Setting aside exparte decree – Observations made by the High Court that defendant cannot be permitted to file their written statement can be said to be beyond the scope and ambit of the CMP filed before the High Court

    24 shares
    Share 10 Tweet 6

Latest updates

Service matter  –  100% reservation , not permissible.
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, S. 14 – The substantive provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 do not say that Section 14 can only be invoked on termination of the earlier proceedings, prosecuted in good faith – Section 14 excludes the time spent in proceeding in a wrong forum, which is unable to entertain the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, or other such cause.

by PLRonline
June 24, 2022
0
2.2k

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 – Does not say that Section 14 can only be invoked on...

Limitation Act S. 5 –  Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven – Commercial Courts Act  2015

IBC S. 238A – Limitation – We see no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should not apply to proceeding under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC – Section 238A of the IBC makes the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings in NCLT/NCLAT ‘as far as may be’ and/or in other words, to the extent they may be applied

June 24, 2022
2.2k
Rent – Fair rent – Provisional tent – Refund  – Rent Controller can direct a refund if it finally finds amount found deposited to be in excess.

Words- Words – ‘Shall’ – ‘as far as may be’ – The use of words ‘as far as may be’, occurring in Section 238A of the IBC tones down the rigour of the words ‘shall’ in the aforesaid Section which is normally considered as mandatory – IBC S. 238A.

June 24, 2022
2.2k

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Delay –  Condonation  – Delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay –  Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application.

June 24, 2022
2.3k
Service matter – Wilful misconduct and negligence simplicitor are not inter changeable terms

SARFAESI S. 13(2) – Right of the borrower to have a due consideration of objections where the bank is bound to apply its mind and inform the borrower of its reasons as to why and how the account is classified as NPA

June 23, 2022
2.2k

2022 PLRonline 0192

June 23, 2022
2.1k
Affidavit – False affidavit –  Fraud  – Allotment of plot  – The filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief

CPC S. 11 – Res judicata – Suit property same – Reliefs prayed different – Does not bar.

June 23, 2022
2.4k
IBC S. 14, NIA S. 141 –  Moratorium – Proceedings against Directors/persons in management or control of the corporate debtor

CrPC S. 438 – Anticipatory bail – – Bail application adjourned for a long without  granting any interim protection – Interim protection granted

June 23, 2022
2.3k

2022 SCeJ 0614 , 2022 PLRonline 2506

June 23, 2022
2.2k
Constitution of India, Article 226 – No such principle of law that a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide disputed questions of fact.

CPC O. 7 R. 11(a) – Limitation – When a suit Ex facie indicates that it is barred by the law of limitation courts are bound to terminate the suit so as to avoid wastage the judicial time and to avoid inconvenience and hardship to  the parties.

June 22, 2022
2.5k
“Best-evidence rule”

NPA – Incorrect to presume that once an NPA is always an NPA  – Prudential Norms and Master Circular issued by RBI

June 22, 2022
2.6k

2009 PLRonline 0012

June 22, 2022
2.2k
Load More
  • LATEST
  • P&H
  • CIVIL
  • CPC
  • CRIMINAL
  • COI
  • SERVICE
  • ARB
  • BANKING
  • CONS
  • HMA
  • IBC
  • MVA
  • NIA
  • Tenancy
Subscribe
  • Login
  • Register
PLRonline.in
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • A
    • A
    • Account
    • Admission
    • Adoption
    • Advocate
    • Agreement
    • Alternate Remedy
    • Annual Confidential Reports (ACR)
    • Arbitration Act, 1940
    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • B
    • B
    • Bail
    • Banking
      • Bank Guarantee
  • C
    • C
    • Charge / Charge Sheet
    • CPC
      • CPC – Sections
      • CPC – Orders and Rules
    • Commercial Courts Act, 2015
    • Companies Act
    • Constitution of India
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
    • Contract Act
    • Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
    • Court
    • Court Fees Act, 1870
    • Criminal Trial
      • Charge / Charge Sheet
    • CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code)
    • Customs Act, 1962
  • D
    • D
    • Disciplinary Proceedings
    • Dying Declaration
  • E
    • E
    • Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)
    • Evidence
    • Evidence Act, 1872
  • F
    • F
    • Family Courts Act, 1984
    • FIR ( First Information Report)
  • G
    • G
    • Genealogy
    • General Clauses Act, 1897
  • H
    • H
    • Habeas Corpus
    • Handwriting expert
    • Haryana Acts
      • Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973)
      • Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978
      • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973
    • Hindu Joint Family
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • I
    • I
    • IBC – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
    • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
    • Information Technology Act
    • Insurance
    • Interpretation
    • Interpretation of Statutes
    • IPC
  • J
    • J
    • Judgment and Orders
    • Judicial Restraint / Judicial Adventurism
  • L
    • L
    • Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
    • Limitation Act, 1963
  • M
    • M
    • Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
    • Marriage
    • Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
    • Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSME, Act)
    • Mortgage
    • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
    • Mutation
  • N
    • N
    • Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS)
    • National Highway Act, 1956
    • Natural Justice
    • Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA)
  • O
    • O
  • P
    • P
    • Punjab Acts / Rules etc.
      • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
      • Punjab Jail Manual
      • Punjab Police Rules, 1934
      • Punjab Regional And Town Planning And Development Act, 1995
      • Punjab State Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961
      • Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922
    • Partnership Act, 1932
    • Passports Act, 1967
    • Pay fixation
    • Pedigree
    • Pension
    • Perjury
    • Practice and Procedure
    • Prevention of Corruption Act
    • Principle of estoppel or acquiescence
    • Prisons Act, 1894
    • Proclaimed offender
    • Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
  • R
    • R
    • RERA
    • Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
    • Registration Act, 1908
    • Representation of the People Act, , 1951
  • S
    • S
    • Sale of Goods Act
    • Sarfaesi
    • Service Matters
    • Service of orders on a government servant
    • Sexual Offence
    • Special Marriage Act, 1954
    • Specific Performance
    • Specific Relief Act, 1963
    • Stamp Act, 1899
    • Stamp duty
    • Stay
    • Suit for declaration / possession
    • Suit for recovery of Money
  • T
    • T
    • Tenancy and Rent Act
      • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
      • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973
    • Trade Unions Act
    • Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  • V
    • Voice recording
  • W
    • Wakf Act, 1955
    • Words and Phrases
  • Home
  • A
    • A
    • Account
    • Admission
    • Adoption
    • Advocate
    • Agreement
    • Alternate Remedy
    • Annual Confidential Reports (ACR)
    • Arbitration Act, 1940
    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • B
    • B
    • Bail
    • Banking
      • Bank Guarantee
  • C
    • C
    • Charge / Charge Sheet
    • CPC
      • CPC – Sections
      • CPC – Orders and Rules
    • Commercial Courts Act, 2015
    • Companies Act
    • Constitution of India
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
    • Contract Act
    • Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
    • Court
    • Court Fees Act, 1870
    • Criminal Trial
      • Charge / Charge Sheet
    • CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code)
    • Customs Act, 1962
  • D
    • D
    • Disciplinary Proceedings
    • Dying Declaration
  • E
    • E
    • Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)
    • Evidence
    • Evidence Act, 1872
  • F
    • F
    • Family Courts Act, 1984
    • FIR ( First Information Report)
  • G
    • G
    • Genealogy
    • General Clauses Act, 1897
  • H
    • H
    • Habeas Corpus
    • Handwriting expert
    • Haryana Acts
      • Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973)
      • Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978
      • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973
    • Hindu Joint Family
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • I
    • I
    • IBC – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
    • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
    • Information Technology Act
    • Insurance
    • Interpretation
    • Interpretation of Statutes
    • IPC
  • J
    • J
    • Judgment and Orders
    • Judicial Restraint / Judicial Adventurism
  • L
    • L
    • Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
    • Limitation Act, 1963
  • M
    • M
    • Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
    • Marriage
    • Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
    • Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSME, Act)
    • Mortgage
    • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
    • Mutation
  • N
    • N
    • Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS)
    • National Highway Act, 1956
    • Natural Justice
    • Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA)
  • O
    • O
  • P
    • P
    • Punjab Acts / Rules etc.
      • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
      • Punjab Jail Manual
      • Punjab Police Rules, 1934
      • Punjab Regional And Town Planning And Development Act, 1995
      • Punjab State Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961
      • Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922
    • Partnership Act, 1932
    • Passports Act, 1967
    • Pay fixation
    • Pedigree
    • Pension
    • Perjury
    • Practice and Procedure
    • Prevention of Corruption Act
    • Principle of estoppel or acquiescence
    • Prisons Act, 1894
    • Proclaimed offender
    • Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
  • R
    • R
    • RERA
    • Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
    • Registration Act, 1908
    • Representation of the People Act, , 1951
  • S
    • S
    • Sale of Goods Act
    • Sarfaesi
    • Service Matters
    • Service of orders on a government servant
    • Sexual Offence
    • Special Marriage Act, 1954
    • Specific Performance
    • Specific Relief Act, 1963
    • Stamp Act, 1899
    • Stamp duty
    • Stay
    • Suit for declaration / possession
    • Suit for recovery of Money
  • T
    • T
    • Tenancy and Rent Act
      • East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
      • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973
    • Trade Unions Act
    • Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  • V
    • Voice recording
  • W
    • Wakf Act, 1955
    • Words and Phrases
No Result
View All Result
Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • V
  • W

CPC O. 9 R. 13 – Setting aside exparte decree - Observations made by the High Court that defendant cannot be permitted to file their written statement can be said to be beyond the scope and ambit of the CMP filed before the High Court

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence –  For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim -

Home Various Acts

Nanjundappa v. The State of Karnataka , 2022 SCeJ 0595 , 2022 PLRonline 1605 (SC) ,

by PLRonline
in Various Acts
Reading Time: 9 mins read
A A
0
FavoriteLoadingAdd to favourties
Download / Print

Supreme Court of India

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA N.V. RAMANA JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

Nanjundappa v. The State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017

17th May 2022

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – No eye witness –  In a case of  Circumstantial evidence there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste –  While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts –  For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim –  Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses –  Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature –  We are constrained to repeat our observation that it sounds completely preposterous that a telephone wire carried 11KV current without melting on contact and when such current passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the wiring of the entire house –  It is even more unbelievable that Appellant no. 2 came in contact with the same voltage and managed to get away with a few abrasions – The Appellants therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so, when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution story – Conviction and sentence set aside – IPC, s. 304A read with S. 34 IPC.

Petitioner Counsel: RAJESH MAHALE

Respondent Counsel: V. N. RAGHUPATHY

Act Name: Indian Penal Code, 1860

HeadNote : Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.34, S.304A

Section :

Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases Cited :

Para 9: Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0275/1979; 1979CriLJ1374

Para 10: S.L.Goswami Vs. State of M.P., 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC)

JUDGEMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and Order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1048/2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the appellants herein. The High Court confirmed the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting the Appellants under Section 304(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months and penalty of Rs. 3000/­ each with default stipulation of Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details as unfolded by prosecution are as under:

On 21.11.2003 at around 1.00p.m. Sri Uday Shankar S/o PW2 was watching TV in his house at Molakalmuru Town, New Police Quarter No. 13, when there was a sudden sound in the TV. Noticing the sound, the deceased got up to separate the dish wire, the TV connection wire and the telephone wire, which were entwined together. At this point, he felt an electric shock and his right hand was burnt and as a result of this shock he succumbed to death. Upon enquiry, during the course of investigation, it was found that Appellant No. 2, who was a daily wage worker working under the supervision of Appellant no. 1, an employee in the telephone department, had, while working on the DP Pole, pulled the telephone wire. The telephone wire got detached and fell on the 11 KV Power line and electricity passed into the telephone wire. At this time, there was a sound in the TV at PW2’s house and as the deceased went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there was a short circuit and thereby, the right hand of the deceased was burnt and he died because of electrocution. It is further alleged that the said incident took place because of the negligent act on the part of Appellant/accused No. 1 and Appellant/accused No. 2.

3. The conviction of the Appellants/Accused rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted were as follows:

(1) PW1/doctor’s report suggesting that death was due to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of the brain stem secondary to shock.

(2) Deposition of PW9,10,16, who were Police Staff residing in the Delhi police quarters, stating that they also touched the telephones in their respective houses and felt the presence of electricity and immediately threw away the telephone instruments.

(3) Evidence of PW1/doctor, who stated that on the same day he had examined Appellant/Accused no. 2 for injuries as he had sustained a fall from the pole and an out-patient slip was also issued to him.

(4) Evidence of the Prosecution witnesses that the deceased upon hearing noise from the television set first switched off the main electricity switch and then tried to separate the wires. However, there was still current in the wires.

(5) Evidence of PW15, who was a higher officer in the Department of Telephone stating that Appellant/accused no.1 and Appellant/ accused no. 2 were on duty and working on that day.

4. The defence taken by the Appellants/accused is that on the day of the incident, they had not attended any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and death of the deceased was not due to their carelessness and negligence. While the Appellants/accused have not denied the post­mortem report which attributes the death to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of the brain stem secondary to shock, the source of the shock is implied to be the television set and not the Telephone connection.

5. After giving our careful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences on record even if we take that the Appellants/accused were in fact working on the DP pole on the day of the incident, we find it difficult to believe that with the alleged 11KV current running through Telephone wire, the wires did not melt; rather with the alleged volts of current passing through the telephone instruments PW9,10,16 were able to throw the telephone instruments away upon contact and lived to tell the tale unharmed. Even assuming that the deceased and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock were wearing slippers at the time of contact causing resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any contact with such a high voltage current in all probability should have left any person who came in contact dead and his/her body charred. For reference standard domestic voltage in India is only around 220V. Hitherto, the evidence by PW9,10 & 16 is hearsay and circumstantial and not worthy of any credence.

6. Now referring to PW1­Doctor’s evidence; he deposed that Appellant no. 2 had visited him on the same day of the incident and had suffered abrasion injuries on his four fingers of both hands i.e., excluding the thumbs and abrasions on both thighs. The record shows that the deceased had also suffered abrasion injury along with burn injuries. PW1 deposed in Examination­in­chief in clear words that “the blood vessels of right thumb finger and ring finger were burnt and wounds were shrinking.” In light of these facts the lower court came to the conclusion that Appellant no. 2 also suffered abrasion injuries due to electric shock just as the deceased. This conclusion however does not inspire confidence in our eyes bearing in mind that if Appellant no.2 had infact suffered an electric shock coming in contact with 11KV high tension line and sustained a fall from the pole he would have suffered burn injuries too such as the deceased and such a shock along with the fall could potentially be fatal. However, the record only shows abrasions on 4 fingers and thighs.

7. We also find difficult to see reason in the submission that telephone wires were able to carry current from an 11KV high tension line and did not immediately melt. It is even more difficult to assimilate that such current when passed through the television, did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of the house on fire. Be that as it may, the allegations against the Appellants are highly technical in nature and we find that no report or even inspection was conducted by a technical expert to assess the veracity of the averments made by the complainants to suggest that it was due to the alleged acts of the Appellants that the incident took place.

8. Even the evidence of PW15 is circumstantial in nature, who stated that as per the job sheet, the Appellants were working at the Police quarters; however, there is no eye witness to say conclusively that the Appellants were infact executing the work at the place alleged.

9. Here it would be useful to advert to the dictum in the case of Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0275/1979; 1979CriLJ1374 in which this Court proceeded on the basis that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is well known. In Syad Akbar (supra), this Court opined:

“29. Such simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the general mode of inferring a fact in issue from another circumstantial fact is subject to all the principles, the satisfaction of which is essential before an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. These are: Firstly, all the circumstances, including the objective circumstances constituting the accident, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances must be of a determinative tendency pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should make a chain so complete that they cannot reasonably raise any other hypothesis save that of the accused’s guilt. That is to say, they should be incompatible with his innocence, and inferentially exclude all reasonable doubt about his guilt.”

10. In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced. As far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence is concerned, in the judgment titled as “S.L.Goswami Vs. State of M.P., 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC)” this Court held:­

“5 ….. In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution………………………”

11. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the Courts below were not justified in convicting the Appellants of negligence under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC.

12. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature. We are constrained to repeat our observation that it sounds completely preposterous that a telephone wire carried 11KV current without melting on contact and when such current passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the wiring of the entire house. It is even more unbelievable that Appellant no. 2 came in contact with the same voltage and managed to get away with a few abrasions. The Appellants therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so, when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution story.

13. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside. The Appellants are on bail. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds.

14. As a consequence, the appeal stands allowed.

ShareTweet6SendSend

read MORE

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), S. 14(2) – Expression ‘Court’ –  Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of proceedings under the IBC before the NCLT/NCLAT, the expression ‘Court’ in Section 14(2) would be deemed to be any forum for a civil proceeding including any Tribunal or any forum under the SARFAESI Act.

June 25, 2022
2.1k
IPC, S. 84 – Where Exception under Sec.84 is claimed

NDPS Act  S. 42 – Non Compliance – While delayed compliance was acceptable, however, where there was a total non compliance – Accused ought to be granted the concession of regular bail

June 24, 2022
2.2k
CrPC S. 439 – Bail applications – Victim – It shall be obligatory upon the High Court to provide them a legal aid counsel with adequate experience in criminal law

Limitation – When stakes are high, the explanation should not be rejected by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, causing thereby irreparable loss and injury to the party against whom the lis terminates – 

June 24, 2022
2.2k
Service matter  –  100% reservation , not permissible.

Limitation Act, S. 14 – The substantive provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 do not say that Section 14 can only be invoked on termination of the earlier proceedings, prosecuted in good faith – Section 14 excludes the time spent in proceeding in a wrong forum, which is unable to entertain the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, or other such cause.

June 24, 2022
2.2k
Limitation Act S. 5 –  Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven – Commercial Courts Act  2015

IBC S. 238A – Limitation – We see no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should not apply to proceeding under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC – Section 238A of the IBC makes the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings in NCLT/NCLAT ‘as far as may be’ and/or in other words, to the extent they may be applied

June 24, 2022
2.2k
Rent – Fair rent – Provisional tent – Refund  – Rent Controller can direct a refund if it finally finds amount found deposited to be in excess.

Words- Words – ‘Shall’ – ‘as far as may be’ – The use of words ‘as far as may be’, occurring in Section 238A of the IBC tones down the rigour of the words ‘shall’ in the aforesaid Section which is normally considered as mandatory – IBC S. 238A.

June 24, 2022
2.2k

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PLRonline.in

Copyright © 2021 | Punjab Law Reporter | 232 Sector 19A | Chandigarh . India . 160019 | +91 7009097337 | plr@plroline.in

Navigate Site

  • LATEST
  • P&H
  • CIVIL
  • CPC
  • CRIMINAL
  • COI
  • SERVICE
  • ARB
  • BANKING
  • CONS
  • HMA
  • IBC
  • MVA
  • NIA
  • Tenancy

Follow Us

  • Login
  • Sign Up
No Result
View All Result
  • LATEST
  • P&H
  • CIVIL
  • CPC
  • CRIMINAL
  • COI
  • SERVICE
  • ARB
  • BANKING
  • CONS
  • HMA
  • IBC
  • MVA
  • NIA
  • Tenancy

Copyright © 2021 | Punjab Law Reporter | 232 Sector 19A | Chandigarh . India . 160019 | +91 7009097337 | plr@plroline.in

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add Supreme Court Online APP!

Add
×

Please click

Team  PLRonline
Click for support Team PLRonline

Supreme Court Online is also available on Whatsapp, Telegram, Instagram, Email. Join  us here!

× Join us on