High Court of Punjab and Haryana

9 judgments

Year:

312d28f8118087e62709a8eceac9ed968a4e39521035b71e33893d34e1829ffc

31 Oct 2019 · A.S. Bopana

The court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence, dismissing the appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC murder grievous hurt eyewitness testimony

1d356dbabeddec24f581b747e75a239213baa720579db75b219aa64e49a1d226

22 Sep 2011 · Indermeet Kaur · 2011:DHC:9727

Contempt petition dismissed as not pressed after respondent's binding undertaking that no third party interest was created in the disputed property.

civil petition_dismissed contempt petition undertaking third party interest property dispute

Gupta & Syal Limited v. JCT Limited

10 May 2011 · Manmttan, J · 2011:DHC:7542

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between M/s Gupta & Syal Limited and M/s JCT Limited under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after finding compliance with statutory requirements and no objections.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 Transferor Company

GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

23 Nov 2010 · Markandey Katju; Gyan Sudha Misra
Cites 0 · Cited by 71

The Supreme Court held that non-compoundable offences under IPC cannot be compounded by courts and directed a larger Bench to reconsider earlier decisions permitting such compounding.

criminal other Significant compounding of offences non-compoundable offence Section 120B IPC Section 420 IPC

State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh

11 Aug 2009 · Harjit Singh Bedi; J. M. Panchal · [2009] 13 (ADDL.) SCR 622
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Rajinder Singh in a murder case due to serious doubts arising from conflicting ocular and medical evidence and non-explanation of injuries on the accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC benefit of doubt non-explanation of injuries ocular evidence vs medical evidence

Veena Chopra v. State of Haryana & Anr.

12 May 2009 · Altamas Kabir; Cyriac Joseph

The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition as infructuous after the High Court quashed the FIR on compromise and directed refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner.

criminal petition_dismissed Special Leave Petition anticipatory bail quashing of FIR compromise

Bawa Ram & Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

05 May 2009 · Dr. Arijit Pasayat; Asok Kumar Ganguly · 2009(7) SCR 591

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants of murder charges, holding that dying declarations must be scrutinized in light of the deceased's mental condition and suicidal tendencies, especially when eyewitnesses retract their statements.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC retracted eyewitness testimony

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. B.D. GUPTA

06 Sep 2008 · K.G. Balakrishnan; Dr. Arijit Pasayat; P. Sathasivam

The Supreme Court disposed of insurance companies' appeals by directing payment of additional compensation to the respondent in a death claim, affirming the High Court's award and endorsing settlement via Lok Adalat.

civil appeal_allowed compensation insurance companies death claim High Court award

Sat Narain v. State of Haryana

08 Jan 2008 · C.K. Thakker; Dalveer Bhandari

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Sat Narain for murder and attempt to murder, rejecting his plea of self-defence and confirming life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant right of private defence Section 302 IPC Section 307 IPC self-defence burden of proof