(1)
K.V. PRAKASH BABU ..... Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA .....Respondent D.D
22/11/2016
Facts: The appellant, K.V. Prakash Babu, appealed against the State of Karnataka regarding his conviction under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved allegations of mental cruelty and abetment of suicide arising from the appellant's alleged involvement in an extra-marital affair.Issues:Whether the actions of the appellant constituted mental cruelty under Sect...
(2)
M/S GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD. ..... Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE .....Respondent D.D
22/11/2016
Facts:The appellants, two Public Sector Undertakings of the State of Gujarat, were served with a show cause notice alleging that Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (GSFC) was collecting 'incineration charges' from Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. (GACL), considered as 'Storage and Warehousing Services' under the Finance Act, 1994.GSFC contested the notice, argui...
(3)
RAMESH ..... Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent D.D
22/11/2016
Facts: The case involves the death of a woman due to 100% burn injuries. The dying declaration of the victim, recorded before a magistrate, was crucial evidence in the trial.Issues:The credibility of the dying declaration.The reliability of witnesses, particularly a hostile witness.The scope of interference in appeals against acquittals.Held:The court discussed the narrow scope of interference in ...
(4)
STATE THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, RAICHUR ..... Vs.
C.N. MANJUNATH .....Respondent D.D
22/11/2016
Facts:The issue arose due to conflicting opinions in different Benches of the Karnataka High Court regarding the classification of licensed surveyors as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The Supreme Court considered relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, along with rules governing the qualifications and duties of licensed surveyors.Issues:Whether li...
(5)
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA ..... Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent D.D
21/11/2016
Facts:The victim's testimony, although initially lacking in specific naming of the appellant, was detailed and consistent throughout his statements under different sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. The victim's father corroborated key aspects of the events. The negotiations for a land deal initiated by one of the accused revealed a concerted effort to entrap the victim, gradually ...
(6)
LOK PRAHARI THR. ITS GNRL. SECY, S.N. SHUKLA ..... Vs.
STATE OF U.P. .....Respondent D.D
21/11/2016
Facts:The appellant challenged the legality of the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme in Uttar Pradesh, providing budgetary grants to Members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council for development work in their constituencies.The appellant contended that the scheme encroached upon the domain of development plans governed by Article 243ZD and the Uttar Pradesh District Planning Committee Act, 1999....
(7)
RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH, DHANBAD ..... Vs.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF KENDUADIH COLLIERY OF M/S BCCL .....Respondent D.D
21/11/2016
Facts: The dispute arose concerning the demand for the employment of certain workers, including Shri Arjun Paswan and 87 others, who were engaged as 'Tyndals' at the Kenduadih Colliery. Legal proceedings ensued, including a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal in 1993 and subsequent challenges in the High Court.Issues: The entitlement of the workers to reinstatement or compensation based...
(8)
STATE OF U.P. ..... Vs.
ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION .....Respondent D.D
21/11/2016
Facts: The case involved a review of the deficiencies within the adjudicatory fora responsible for consumer protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A committee chaired by Justice Arijit Pasayat submitted an interim report highlighting issues such as poor organizational setup, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of trained manpower, hindering the effective functioning of consumer fora...
(9)
BAIJNATH ..... Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....Respondent D.D
18/11/2016
Facts: The case involved the appeal by the in-laws of the deceased, who were initially acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted by the High Court under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the death of the deceased, Saroj Bai. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, including demands for dow...