Supreme Court: Foreign Companies’ Head Office Expenses in India are Capped under Section 44C  ||  SC Directs Trial Courts to Systematically Catalogue Witnesses and Evidence in Criminal Judgments  ||  SC Calls For Sensitising Future Generations on Equality in Marriage to Combat Dowry Practices  ||  SC: Separate Suits Against Confirmed Auction Sales are Barred; Remedy Available under Sec 47  ||  NCLT Mumbai: Oppression Claims Against Majority Shareholders Do not Justify Winding up a Company  ||  J&K&L HC Rules it Illegal and Inequitable to Deny Regularisation to a Daily Wager After 34 Years  ||  J&K&L High Court: Revisional Powers Must Be Used Within Reasonable Time; Merits Don’t Justify Delay  ||  Supreme Court: Compassionate Appointees Cannot Later Claim Entitlement to a Higher Post  ||  NCLAT New Delhi: Insolvency Pleas Cannot Be Admitted When Information Utility Records Show a Dispute  ||  NCLAT: Issuing Cheques For Another Entity’s Liabilities Does not Constitute Operational Debt    

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Which Misread Direction - (02 Mar 2020)

CRIMINAL

Delhi High Court has clarified that there is a difference between "addition" of charge and "alteration" of charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court has stated that when the High Court had, in a criminal revision Petition, directed the Trial Court to add the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Accused, the Trial Court had erred since it "replaced" the existing charge under Section 304 Part I with Section 304B of IPC.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   TRIAL COURT ORDER WHICH MISREAD DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved