Home / articles / Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh

Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh

November 5, 2017 articles 2 Comments 8,690 Views

Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh (Downloadable PDF)

Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh by Latest Laws Team on Scribd

Facebook Comments

Tags IPC Section 411 IPC Stolen Property

Check Also

How Judges should comply Section 437 A CrPC? by Rakesh Kumar Singh

2 comments

Anil Rakhra adv
November 6, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Pl send all latest n important judgments of SC n high courts to my e mail .thanx

Reply
- Latest Laws Team
  November 7, 2017 at 1:52 am
  
  Sir Our Latest Caselaws compilation on the Home Page has daily Reporting of SC Judgements which are easily Downloadable. We are Happy to serve you. Team Latest Laws
  
  Reply

HALAPPA Vs. MALIK SAB

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

A. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 - 100% permanent disability - Compensation - Case of insurer that he visited to attend event - A demonstration of tractors was being held by tractor\'s company - Insured who is agriculturist, when approached tractor, driver unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle and collided with insured resulting in grievous injuries - Held, insurer failed to produce either file or report of Investigator in case - No independent witness produced by insurer to displace version of incident as deposed to by insured and eye witness - Insurer liable for compensation. B. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 - 100% permanent disability - Compensation - Enhancement - Medical evidence shows that lower limbs of insurer paralyzed resulting in a loss of bladder and bowel control - Medical evidence establishes 100% disability of insurer - Insurer suffers from traumatic paraplegia and was hospitalized for 42 days - Insurer was 28 years of age when accident took place - Thus, monthly income of insurer L 4,000/- - Award for Future prospects and deduction for present expenses, enhanced from L 5,75,000/- to L 7,75,000/- - Award for future medical expenses enhanced from L 30,000/- to L 1,20,000/- regard to nature of disability - Therefore, compensation enhanced by L 2,70,000/- at the rate of 7% interest.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Consumer Fora - Implementation of proper infrastructure - Committee appointed by present Court has filed its report - Committee has completed its task - Work of three member Committee appointed stands concluded with its report, a copy of which placed on record - Committee stands closed - ASG to assist present Court in formulating appropriate directions to ensure that proper infrastructure made available at all levels of consumer fora across country.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 102 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 72A - Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, appeal dismissed.

Dipak Misra, CJI. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

DINESH KUMAR J. @ DINESH J, Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Ordinary Civil Matter, appeal is allowed.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

HARPAL SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Constitution of India, Article 227 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Section 185 (1) - Specific Relief Act, Section 6, appeal is dismissed.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

RAJIVE RATURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Companies Act, 2013, Section 2 - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

DISABLED RIGHT GROUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995, Section 39 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 32 - Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

M.C.MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006.

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

JOSEPH Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

14/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with Section 149, appeals are partly allowed.

Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.

14/12/2017 View PDF View Text

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. DANKUNI STEELS LIMITED

14/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9, appeal is allowed.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

14/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Latest CaseLaw

Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Thursday

11 January 2018

Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh

You May Also Like

Check Also

How Judges should comply Section 437 A CrPC? by Rakesh Kumar Singh

2 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Possession of Stolen Mobile would not amount to commission of offence u/s 411 IPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh

You May Also Like

Section 305 CrPC: Dealing with Offences Committed by Companies and Trials by Rakesh Kumar Singh

Scope and Power of Court to Seek Bond under Section 88 CrPC by Rakesh Kumar Singh

Cognizance and Criminal Trial under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Rakesh Kumar Singh

Check Also

How Judges should comply Section 437 A CrPC? by Rakesh Kumar Singh

2 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply