SC: Mere Mention of 'Arbitration' Does not Form Agreement Without Clear Intent  ||  SC: No Entitlement to Job as Compensation for Land Acquired under Land Acquisition Act  ||  SC: Court Cannot Probe Credibility of FIR Allegations While Entertaining Quashing Plea  ||  SC: Notice under Indian Forest Act Does not Transfer Private Forests to Maharashtra Law  ||  SC: Unilateral Termination of Sale Agreement Invalid if Contract Does Not Permit it  ||  NCLAT: Pre-COVID Defaults do not Exempt Debtors From Insolvency Proceedings  ||  NCLAT: Liquidator Must Obtain NCLT Approval Before Conducting Private Sale  ||  NCLAT: Contract Termination for Performance Default Not Barred by CIRP Moratorium  ||  Kerala HC: Partial Specific Performance Not Allowed if Defendant Holds Undisputed Property Title  ||  Kerala HC: Complainant Must be Informed if Probe Against FIR-Named Accused is Dropped    

SC: High Court Not Permitted to Interfere With Acquittal Unless Trial Court’s View Perverse - (03 Apr 2024)

CRIMINAL

Supreme Court has held that in any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   INTERFERENCE   HIGH COURT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved