TRIBUNAL AWARDS LESS DAMAGES, THE KARNATAKA HC GIVES JUSTICE BY AWARDING MORE
December 30, 2022by Primelegal Team
In the matter of Kumaraswamy vs The Executive Engineer (Elec) on 22 November, 2022(M.F.A.NO.3585/2017 (MV–I)) presided by THE HON’BLE M
IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHAN GOPAL (SUPRA), THE VERY CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY THAT INTEREST HAS TO BE REDUCED TO 6% CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND HENCE THE INTEREST IS AWARDED AT THE RATE OF 9% PER ANNUM SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
December 30, 2022by Primelegal Team
In the matter of Regional Manager vs Geetha on 22 November, 2022 presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH state thatThis m.F.A is off
While exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court should not readily accept the charge of malus animus laid against the State and its functionaries. The burden to prove the charge of malafides is always on the person who moves the court for invalidation of the action of the State and/or its agencies and instrumentalities on the ground that the same is vitiated due to malafides: The Uttarakhand High Court
December 30, 2022by Primelegal Team
The Uttarakhand high court Passed a Judgement on 19th march 2019 in the case Dr. Praveen v. Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research &
Merely, because of non- examination of the plaintiff in the proceedings of the suit it will not disentitle the plaintiff from getting the relief which is otherwise he or she is able to substantiate by way of other evidences on record and oral testimony of the witness on record: the Uttarakhand high court
December 30, 2022by Primelegal Team
The high court of Uttarakhand passed a judgment on 16th February 2019 in the case Devkinandan Bhatt & Another v. Smt. Krishna Tiwari & Othe
All of these lead this court to the conclusion that it would be unlawful and grossly misuse the court’s process to allow the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to move forward: Calcutta High Court
December 29, 2022by Primelegal Team
The above was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Afshan Meerza vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr, C.R.R. 1484 of 2016 With CRAN 9
No evidence was collected by the CBI to prove the above ingredients against the A-2.In considering the entire circumstances I am of view that the charge labelled against the A-2 by the CBI can not prove her guilt in trial: Calcutta High Court
December 29, 2022by Primelegal Team
The above-mentioned was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Sushanta Dasgupta and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, C.R.R.
Sharon Murder Case, High Court Dismisses Bail Application Of Greeshma’s Mother: Kerela High Court
December 29, 2022by Primelegal Team
The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed the petition seeking Bail moved by Greeshma’s mother Sindhu, who is one of the accused booked
Thiruvarur Hospital Can Recover ₹5 Lakh Compensation Amount From Doctors, Officials In Medical Negligence Case: Madras High Court
December 29, 2022by Primelegal Team
Madras High Court Rules That Thiruvarur Hospital Can Recover 5 Lakh In Compensation From Doctors And Officials In Medical Negligence Case The Madra
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act | ‘Accommodation’ U/S 2 Includes Superstructures: High Court
December 29, 2022by Primelegal Team
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court determined that a superstructure is within the scope of the term “accommodation” as def
There cannot be any set of rules or guidelines, which may apply in all cases, under all the circumstances for evaluation of evidence. Evaluation of evidence is a matter, which differs with case to case and even in some cases, it differs from witness to witness: The Uttarakhand high court
December 28, 2022by Primelegal Team
The high court of Uttarakhand passed a judgement on 11th January 2019 in the case Rajesh v. state of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2015).
