Relation Of Witnesses To Deceased By Marriage Not Enough To Reject Their Testimony

The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased by marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related and interested witness to reject his testimony, the Supreme Court has observed while dismissing the appeals in a murder case (Chandrasekar vs State).

The wife of the deceased and her relatives were prime witnesses in this case and they had deposed seeing the murderous assault on the deceased by the accused. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and the high court had upheld the verdict.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/relation-witnesses-deceased-marriage-not-enough-reject-testimony-sc-read-judgment/

Comments

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907 of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession and thus, committed a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been entertained by the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case No. 608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti Zen) be given to the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2009. The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an ongoing concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd, IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...

Legal News & Views

Search This Blog