Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for George Bhaktan VS Rabindra Lele...
Checking relevance for Chandran @ Surendran VS State Of Kerala...
Chandran @ Surendran VS State Of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 470 : The judgment in the case of Thammada Gopalakrishna (also referred to as Gopalakrishna in the documents) involves two appeals preferred by the appellants who were jointly tried under Sessions Case No. 83 of 1986 for the offences of murder, robbery, and criminal trespass. The case arose from a brutal incident on 11-1-1986, where the appellants allegedly entered the house of PW 7 (Parvathi Amma) in Kudlu village, Kasargod, attacked and killed Pushpa and Gopalakrishna (the deceased), injured PW 7 and PW 8, and stole gold ornaments and a wristwatch. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of a spade (M.O. 4) at the scene, partial thumb impressions on glass pieces, and injuries consistent with the weapon. However, the court held that there was no direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime, no identification parade, no evidence of their movement near the scene, and the chronology of events was not satisfactorily established. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be of definite tendency pointing to the guilt of the accused and must unerringly lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by those accused and none else. Due to the insufficiency and unreliability of the circumstantial evidence, the convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34, 392, 397, 307, 449, 457, and 458 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside. The judgment was delivered by Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian.Checking relevance for V. S. Achuthanandan VS R. Balakrishna Pillai...
V. S. Achuthanandan VS R. Balakrishna Pillai - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 566 : The judgment in the case of Thammada Gopalakrishnan (also referred to as G. Gopalakrishnan Pillai) concerns a criminal prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC, where the Special Public Prosecutor sought withdrawal of prosecution against accused No. 6 on the ground of total absence of material evidence. The Special Judge rejected the application, and the Kerala High Court set aside this order, but the Supreme Court ultimately held that the High Court erred in doing so. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court improperly considered grounds not urged by the Public Prosecutor, examined administrative files not part of the record, and failed to recognize that only the opinion of the Public Prosecutor is relevant under Section 321 CrPC. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court''''s order must be set aside because it lacked proper perception of its own jurisdiction and wrongly added observations suggesting further prosecution might be reconsidered. Thus, the final legal position is that the prosecution against G. Gopalakrishnan Pillai (accused No. 6) may continue, as the withdrawal was properly denied by the Special Judge and the High Court’s reversal was unlawful.Checking relevance for S. M. Gopalakrishna Chetty VS Ganeshan...
S. M. Gopalakrishna Chetty VS Ganeshan - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 267 : The judgment concerns S. M. Gopalakrishna, the appellant and present landlord, who holds a life interest in the premises under a Deed of Settlement executed on May 9, 1934. The court held that he is entitled to evict tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 on the ground that the building is bona fide required by him for demolition and reconstruction. The court affirmed that the landlord, including a person holding a life interest and receiving rents as trustee, has the right to demolish the property to build a new structure for improved business or better returns, which cannot be deemed mala fide. The appeals were allowed, and an order was passed directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.Checking relevance for Sachida Nand Singh VS State Of Bihar...
Checking relevance for BISWANATH GHOSH AND OTHERS (Dead) VS GOBINDA GHOSH ALIAS GOBINDHA CHANDRA GHOSH...
BISWANATH GHOSH AND OTHERS (Dead) VS GOBINDA GHOSH ALIAS GOBINDHA CHANDRA GHOSH - 2015 1 Supreme 22 : The judgment referred to in the document is Syed Dastagir vs. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337, which is cited in the legal documents as a precedent on the issue of readiness and willingness to perform under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The document explicitly references this case in the context of a plaintiff''''s readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations, particularly in cases seeking specific performance. The judgment is cited in support of the principle that readiness and willingness can be inferred from conduct, not just explicit language, and that technical defects in pleading should not bar a claim if the substance is present and no prejudice is caused to the other party.Checking relevance for BALASUBRAMANIAM VS STATE BY Superintend Inspector POLICE,T. N. ...
Checking relevance for M. Nanjunda Reddy VS Malathi...
M. Nanjunda Reddy VS Malathi - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1140 : The judgment in the case of Thammada Gopalakrishna (referred to as ''''Gopalakrishna'''' in the document) holds that an agreement for the sale of land is void ab initio if it contravenes the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1966. The court found that the agreement of sale dated 2/2/1984 between Gopalakrishna and the plaintiff was invalid due to non-compliance with the Act, which prohibits the sale of land fragments without adherence to specific legal requirements. Consequently, the suit for specific performance was dismissed, as the agreement was unenforceable from the outset. The plaintiff failed to prove both the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration, further supporting the dismissal.
