PEER SINGH …APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

whether the three appellants were present at the spot or not? “Dehati   Nalishi” can  be termed to  be the  first information given to the police. The first information which is in the nature of “Dehati Nalishi” was recorded at the instance of Motisingh (PW­1), the father of the deceased.   The “Dehati Nalishi” was recorded on the… Read More PEER SINGH …APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR. …APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)

Section 302/498A of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) read with Section 34 of IPC Trail court acquitted – High Court convicted – Apex court held that Whether we can convict the accused only on the basis of these dying declarations. In a case of the present nature where the victim had 98% burns and… Read More SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR. …APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)

RUPALI DEVI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

“Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members”. The opinions of this Court on the aforesaid question being… Read More RUPALI DEVI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRs .. Appellant Versus V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) by LRs .. Respondent

whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons to purchase the properties, can the transactions be said to benami in nature? – NO – TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION – HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE SAME – APEX… Read More Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRs .. Appellant Versus V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) by LRs .. Respondent

JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER …Appellants VERSUS SHIVNATH & OTHERS …Respondents

whether the High Court was right in upholding the judgment of the first Appellate Court by observing that in the absence of any order of abandonment or revocation of the patta given to the respondents-plaintiffs, grant of patta (Ex.D-20) in 1929 in favour of the appellants-defendants was illegal and that the appellants-defendants cannot claim right… Read More JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER …Appellants VERSUS SHIVNATH & OTHERS …Respondents

254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an 18 existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8793-8794 OF 2013 ATUL CHANDRA DAS (D) THROUGH LRS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RABINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.ETC. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T K.M. JOSEPH, J. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Atul Chandra… Read More 254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an 18 existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”