ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Ram Chandra Singh, S/o Late Raghunath Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.08.2003 and decree dated 27.08.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VIII, East Champaran at Motihari in Title Suit No.107 of 1998/174 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the suit has been decreed on contest with cost, the defendant-appellants challenged the same by way of instant appeal. It looks wise to address the parties by their original status as they stood before the learned lower court.
2. Briefly stated the case of the parties are as follows:
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. State of A.P.
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2 SCC 627]
Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy. of State for India in Council [(1926-27) 54 IA 338 : AIR 1927 PC 176]
Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd.
Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley
Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST
Maharashtra SEB v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare
Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail [Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar v. State of Maharashtra
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi
Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi
Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India [(1966) 1 SCR 986 : AIR 1966 SC 1068]
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
Satya v. Teja Singh [Satya v. Teja Singh
State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.