Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Vijayan K. Malayil vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2008

Bhuvan Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 November, 2024

16. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 14 SCC 763 was a case where the complaint was made by the prosecutrix after the alleged commission of rape on her by the accused. At the time of making the case, the prosecutrix was pregnant for about seven months. This Court did not place reliance on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court noticed that flaw that no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born out of the said incident and the accused was responsible for the said child."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R Dubey - Full Document

Current Address At vs The Adjudicating Authority on 9 April, 2021

This should be done within the prescribed period, though the actual service of the order may be beyond that period. This aspect of the matter had not come up for consideration in the cases of Viswanathan Chettiar [1954] 25 ITR 79 (Mad.) and Laxmidas & Co. [1969] 72 ITR 88 (Bom) where the only question dealt with was whether service of the order after the prescribed period rendered it invalid. Unless, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in this case had been so issued from his office within the period prescribed, it has to be held that the proceedings are barred by limitation. This question has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, which passed the order, apparently did not have the benefit of the decision in Malayil Mills case (T. R. C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 decided on 7th June, 1982-Kerala High Court) which, so far as we could see, remains, unreported. The matter has therefore to go back to the Tribunal for an examination of the records to ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case of Malayil Mills (T. R. C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 decided on 7th June, 1982-Kerala High Court) extracted earlier.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

The Adjudicating Authority vs /56 on 4 February, 2022

In the decisions relied upon, particularly, in Malayil Hills v. State of Kerala rendered in TRC Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 dated 07.06.1982, the facts were quite different and the considerable delay of about six months in dispatching the orders was the context, in which, the Bench held that such an unusual delay means that the order will deemed to have been passed only when it has been effectively communicated to the party concerned. However, as already elaborated earlier, in the present case, the proximity of the dates from the date of passing of the orders till their dispatch, especially when the same were in a batch of 69 cases, cannot be said to be an undue delay or that cannot muster the test of legality. Moreover, the intent of the Act and the objects show that it is a penal statute, where the offender cannot be given the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 51/56 WA Nos. 1682 of 2021 etc. batch opportunity to take unfair advantage of technicalities, when there has been more than substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. Otherwise, the the purpose for which the Act was enacted, would be defeated. C. FINDINGS
Madras High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Kaini Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2013

16. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2008) 14 SCC 763 was a case where the complaint was made by the prosecutirx after the alleged commission of rape on her by the accused. At the time of making the case, the prosecutrix was pregnant for about seven months. This Court did not place reliance on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court noticed that flaw that no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born out of the said incident and the accused was responsible for the said child.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 149 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Crl.A. No.317-Sb Of 2007 vs State Of Punjab on 26 July, 2013

In the aforesaid case, there was no evidence to show that the accused threatened the prosecutrix from making public the occurrence. Infact, it was a sexual intercourse based on a promise made by the accused to marry her. Further, in the above case, the prosecutrix was a major. Therefore, I find that the above ratio is factually distinguishable and therefore, the same cannot be applied to the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next