Judgments
MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI VERSUS AMRAPALI HOMES PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
NAGENDER KUMAR & ANR VERSUS ANITA TIWARI
RAJ KUMAR & ANR VERSUS VAKEELA KHATOON & ANR
ROYAL SUNDRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VERSUS ITI GOYAL & ORS
SARIGAM CONTAINERS P. LTD. VERSUS CORE ORGANICS LTD.
SG ENTERPRISES & ORS VERSUS BALLAPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.
TARUNJEET SINGH TANEJA & ORS VERSUS STATE & ANR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VERSUS SHANTI & ORS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD. VERSUS MAMTA DUTTA & ORS
Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989– As per unamended provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the prosecutrix who was subjected to any offence under the IPC was subjected on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community. In view of evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish that offence allegedly committed was on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to reserved community. Hence, Full Judgment
Ajay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - 1. Evidence Act- ‘Related’ and “Interested” Witness” - ‘related’ is not equivalent into ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he derives some benefits from the result of the litigation or in seeing the accused person punished. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration. The Court is obliged to examine such evidence with great care, caution and circumspection. 2. ‘Related’ and ‘interested’ witness – The Full Judgment