Category: Uncategorized

whether culpable homicide amounting to murder

whether culpable homicide amounting to murder  as per Section 300 IPC, if the case falls within Clauses thirdly and fourthly to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide can be said to be amounting to murder. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing that culpable… Read More whether culpable homicide amounting to murder

advocatemmmohan

A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS – THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE – THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE

A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS – THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE – THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE Will dated 15.4.1968 by one… Read More A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS – THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE – THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE

advocatemmmohan

When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party – the story of the prosecution stood as untrue – as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble – Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable .

When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party – the story of the prosecution stood as untrue – as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble – Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable . The   police   parties   were… Read More When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party – the story of the prosecution stood as untrue – as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble – Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable .

advocatemmmohan

whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.

whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.  Whether ordinary criminal court and  a court-martial under the Army Act – Section 69 of the Army Act is reproduced below:  “Subject to the provisions of section 70, any person subject to this Act… Read More whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.

advocatemmmohan

Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ?

Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ? – Since Lok Adalat Award is not that of Land acquisition Tribunal Award on merties or on comprimise as per CPC , no claim be accepted under Sec.28 A of Land… Read More Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ?

advocatemmmohan

Motor Accident Claims = multiplier as “11”= the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by fixing the multiplier as “11”. ; consortium =The widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the children together are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection.;interest = interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition.; “future prospects”= the claimants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects.

  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 20882 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1636/2016] BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANI MUTHUPANDI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. Leave granted. 2. On 03.03.2017, this Court passed the following… Read More Motor Accident Claims = multiplier as “11”= the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by fixing the multiplier as “11”. ; consortium =The widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the children together are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection.;interest = interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition.; “future prospects”= the claimants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects.

advocatemmmohan

Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Drugs Act”). = A Section 33 ban, which was imposed on 294 FDCs in these cases, has been stayed by the Madras High Court, and the very exercise that we have proposed in the Delhi cases has apparently been carried out in this group of cases. A report of the expert committee of the DTAB to review the rationality and safety of 294 FDCs is taken on record. The report indicates that 42 FDCs reportedly were repeated or duplicate; 44 were already prohibited for manufacture in the country; 83 were considered rational; 56 were considered not rational; 49 required further generation of data; 17 were considered inadequate so far as rationality, safety and efficacy is concerned; and 3 other cases were sent for further examination by an expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The DTAB after review of the report and deliberations recommended that the FDC Ofloxacin and Prednisolone at serial number 75 under the category of GI in Annexure C does not appear to be rational 53 and should be re-examined. The list of the drugs mentioned in Annexure D are required to be prohibited/withdrawn from the market as these are not rational.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22972 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.7061 OF 2017 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS PFIZER LIMITED AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 22973-22981 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10170-10178 OF 2017) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 22982-23404… Read More Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Drugs Act”). = A Section 33 ban, which was imposed on 294 FDCs in these cases, has been stayed by the Madras High Court, and the very exercise that we have proposed in the Delhi cases has apparently been carried out in this group of cases. A report of the expert committee of the DTAB to review the rationality and safety of 294 FDCs is taken on record. The report indicates that 42 FDCs reportedly were repeated or duplicate; 44 were already prohibited for manufacture in the country; 83 were considered rational; 56 were considered not rational; 49 required further generation of data; 17 were considered inadequate so far as rationality, safety and efficacy is concerned; and 3 other cases were sent for further examination by an expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The DTAB after review of the report and deliberations recommended that the FDC Ofloxacin and Prednisolone at serial number 75 under the category of GI in Annexure C does not appear to be rational 53 and should be re-examined. The list of the drugs mentioned in Annexure D are required to be prohibited/withdrawn from the market as these are not rational.

advocatemmmohan

application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. = firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.- So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.

advocatemmmohan

Election petition – striking of pleadings and rejection = whether material facts and cause of action have been pleaded in the subject election petition necessitating a trial; and, third, whether the election petition as filed deserved to be rejected in limine without conducting a trialthe High Court has overlooked the cause of action stated in the election petition, which arose from the 14 fact that two different sets of nomination forms and affidavits were filed by respondent No.1 containing several material deficiencies and discrepancies and which was fatal. In other words, the nomination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted and it materially affected the election results of the appellant.

advocatemmmohan