LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, June 17, 2015

When the property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted to him in partition revives as coparcenary Property ?

›
When the property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted to him in partition revives as coparcenary Property ? Whether  the  plaint...
Monday, June 15, 2015

›
ONCE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE - CAN NOT BE REVOKED "Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that ...
Wednesday, June 10, 2015

no offence can be made out against accused inasmuch as the petitioner/A.1 has already pronounced Talaq against complainant on 19.05.2009 and deposited Rs.79,800/- towards Mehar and Iddat for the period of three months and published the factum of divorce in Daily Urdu Newspaper Siasat on 14.06.2009 and said amount was received by the defacto complainant through her Advocate by addressing a letter dated 09.11.2013 and therefore, the complainant can no longer claim as the wife of A.1 and hence the criminal proceedings are not maintainable.= If a former/divorcee husband had subjected a divorced wife to cruelty in his status as her husband during subsistence of their marriage, he will be liable for offence under section 498A of IPC. But, if the alleged act of cruelty is committed by a former husband on the divorced wife after divorce, no offence under section 498A IPC will lie against him. He can however be proceeded against for such act, if it constitutes any other offence. Therefore, the argument of accused in this regard cannot be countenanced.

›
no offence can be made out against accused inasmuch as the petitioner/A.1 has already pronounced Talaq against complainant on 19.05.2009 a...
Sunday, May 17, 2015

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed before the allowance of the unabsorbed investment allowance in computing income of the appellant/assessee for the Assessment Year 1991-1992, when the assessee had not claimed the unabsorbed depreciation in its income-tax return though it had claimed depreciation for the current year? Once the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation has become a part of the depreciation of the current year, it is not open to the assessee to bifurcate the two again and exercising its choice to claim the depreciation of the current year under Section 32(1) of the Act and take a position that since unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years is not claimed, it cannot be thrusted upon the assessee. The position would have been different if the assessee had not claimed any depreciation at all. However, once the depreciation is claimed and while giving deductions the depreciation is to be set off against the profits of the current year prior to the unabsorbed carried forward investment allowance, it is the entire depreciation, namely, the depreciation of the current year as well as the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation, which is to be taken into account as by virtue of the fiction created under Section 32(2) of the Act, carried forward depreciation also partakes the character of depreciation of the current year. This scrambled egg cannot be unscrambled now. Otherwise, it would amount to negating the legal fiction that is created by the said provision, even to the limited extent. In fact, the case falls within the ambit of the said limited extent of legal fiction and gets covered by it.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...

Eye Witnesses presence Doubtful - Suppression of Earlier Complaint which destroyed the entire story of present version - Resulted in Acquittal - Murder took Place at 7-30 p.m. - caught hold of Lingappa’s son Basavaraj-deceased while he was returning home, tied his hands behind his back splashed chilly powder on his face and assaulted him with a club of stones causing injuries on his head and other parts of body leading to his death. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Hanumantha (PW-1), brother of the deceased, and Mannamma (PW-4), mother of the deceased.- but the Eye Witness took no steps to rescue the deceased and to join him in the Hospital - even not untied the hands and all awaited till the arrival of police to take him to the treatment said to be dead on the way - Unnatural & Unbelievable reactions of the witnesses makes their presence on the spot doubtful - Earlier version as admitted by witnesses said that the injured was dead by the time police reached - that report not filed - This implies that the earliest version about the incident was destroyed by PW-19 and a new story stated in the fardbeyan was tailored to suit the prosecution version. This has the effect of completely demolishing the prosecution case and rendering its version wholly unacceptable. - Trail court rightly acquit the accused - High court committed an error and as such Apex court set aside the same and restored the orders of trial court - 2015 SC MSKLAWREPORTS

›
order of the Trial Court  acquitting  the  appellants  set  aside,  and  the appellants convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous  impr...