Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code talks about punishment for murder.

302. Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another without any justification or valid excuse and with malice intended.

Section 300 of the IPC talks about murder.

300. Murder

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

Secondly, If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

Thirdly, If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in­flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

Fourthly, If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Section 302 makes murder a cognizable and non-bailable offense.

Rajesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

This is a case in Delhi High Court, a Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was alleged to have murdered his wife. It was proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The prosecution examined 45 witnesses before the trial court. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and findings of the court, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 and sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved thus, the appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The High Court perused the record and took note of the findings as made by the trial court. The Court noted that the mother of the appellant (PW 1) deposed that the appellant and the deceased slept together and also that she saw the appellant with the deceased on the night of the incident. Further, the post-mortem report clearly showed that the death of the deceased was a result of serious injuries which were caused by the sharp-edged weapon, maybe a farsa. In the Court’s opinion, the prosecution proved that the death was homicidal. Moreover, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report proved that the death was caused inside the jhuggi where the deceased was sleeping with the appellant. The Court observed that there was no alternative theory to suggest how the deceased may have suffered the injuries in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the reasons aforestated, the Court was unable to reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Arjun and ANR. Etc Vs State of Chattisgarh

On 19.11.2006 at about 9:45 AM, deceased Ayodhya Prasad had gone to his field alongside Bajrang Manjhi, Borri Verma, Gilli Raout and Makunda Raout. The deceased was cutting a tree with the help of the persons along with him and at that time, the appellants came in the field and they stopped the deceased and his labor from cutting the tree. Deceased Ayodhya Prasad told the appellants that he was the owner of the tree, therefore he was cutting the tree. Some quarrel took place between them and the appellants assaulted the deceased with a knife and stone. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head. His head was severely injured, he was taken to Bilaspur for treatment, but, he died on the way near Mahanadi Bridge. Shivprasad, the brother of the deceased lodged a First Information Report.  The post-mortem was conducted, the cause of death was a hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session  Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants.

The appellants approached the Supreme Court for relief. The division bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellants were held liable for punishment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

This article aimed to define the meaning of Section 302, the nature of Section 302, the punishment of murder and also some landmark judgments on Section 302.

Section 499 IPC – Criminal Defamation

Criminal defamation, as defined in section 499 IPC, is one of the most controversial provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Time and again, we see defamations news popping up on our televisions and newspapers. Defamation is civil wrong under the tort law as well as a criminal offense under the IPC. We all are well aware that the right to speech is a fundamental right under the Constitution; therefore, the offense of defamation is debated on this issue. But the Supreme Court has held in several cases that the offense of defamation under Section 499 does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution.

“Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The concept of social interest has to be kept in mind when considering the reasonableness of a restriction”. [1]

What is Defamation?

Section 499 says that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputa­tion, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or a state generally considered as disgrace­ful. [2]

Therefore from the above provision, it is evident that defamation is done not only through words spoken but also written. It may be done by signs or visible representation that is directed towards a particular person to cause harm to a person’s reputation. There are four exceptions provided under the provision.

Explanation of Criminal Defamation

Right to speech and expression is one of the important Fundamental rights; therefore, when it is made, limited necessary points need to be considered. Defamation is made an offense under the criminal law, and certain explanations are attached to it to make the understanding clear.

1. Deceased person- usually no defamation is caused to a person who is dead, but, it may amount to defamation if the statement to act done to defame that person causes harm or is derogatory to his family or any of his family members.
2. Corporate body- Although it was controversial as to whether the corporate body can file a defamation suit. The SC strike out the balance between Art. 19 and the right of corporate bodies to file criminal defamation case for alleged damage to reputation.[3]
3. Indirect statement- Sometimes, even an ironically passed statement may also amount to defamation.
4. Lowering intellectual- if a statement is passed by a person to lower the person reputation, then it would be defamatory.

Defamation in English Law

Defamation in English law is classified under two categories-

1. Libel- representation made in some permanent form. For eg.- publication in a newspaper or any other writing form.
2. Slander-statement made in some transcient form. For eg.- by spoken words.

In India, there is no such classification of the offense of defamation. The Madras and Bombay High court has also held that there is no need to make such classification under the Indian criminal law.[4]

Exceptions of Defamation

1. Justification of truth- Law, will not guide a person or favor a person to receive compensation for something true. In a case, the defendant published a defamatory statement against, but the statements were true, so it was not considered as an offense.[5]
2. Fair comment- making fair comments in the public interest is not defamation.
3. Privilege- Giving special status to certain persons protects them from the offense under section 499. These privileges are absolute as well as qualified.

Conclusion

Defamation is one of the most controversial offense. Right to Speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution, but the right is not absolute, and it is restricted. The offense of defamation is a form of this restriction made on the Fundamental Right. A person cannot speak or publish any derogatory remarks for any other person.

[1] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law &ors. (2014) SC 184.

[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 499.

[3] Priya Pillai v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) SC 132.

[4] Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshawdulji (1927) Bom 22.

[5] Radheshayam Tiwari v. Eknath (1895) Bom 285.

You Will Never Thought That Knowing 5 Top White Collar Crime Cases In India You Never Know Could Be So Beneficial!

What is White Collar Crime?

White–collar crime or a corporate crime refers to financially motivated, nonviolent crime committed by government and businesses professionals. Below are some of the top 5 white collar crime cases in India.

1. Harshad Mehta Securities Fraud (1988-1995)  

Protagonist – Harshad Mehta 

Harshad Mehta was a stockbroker, and he established his security firm in 1990, “ Grow More Research & Asset Management Limited”. He was a reputed name in the stock market, and is considered the ‘Sultan of Dalal Street’, investors blindly followed Mehta’s footsteps.[1] He took a loan of huge amount from the bank and purchased the scrips at high prices, thereby creating a false market. He misused his status and manipulated the stock prices of certain scrips for his gain.[2] This resulted in unnatural pumping of money in the stock markets causing an abnormal rise in the price of these shares. This act of Harshad Mehta though being immoral was not illegal. The problem arose when Mehta obtained capital to invest in the stock market by misappropriating bank’s money. This misappropriation of money falls in the purview of money laundering. He earned approximately ₹ 5000 crores.[3] The then renowned journalist Sucheta Dalal exposed this scam. This unabated selling caused the market to loose ₹ 0.1 million in a day. This was the biggest ever crash which the Indian stock market had ever experienced. To curtail such transaction various changes were brought in SEBI rules and regulations.

2. Satyam Scandal: biggest ever corporate accounting fraud

Protagonist – B. Ramalingam Raju

This scam came into light on 7^th January, 20009 by way of confession letter written by B. Ramalingam Raju (Founder and chairman of Satyam Computers Services Limited) published in Times of India. The letter confessed about manipulating his books of account by overstating the assets and understating liabilities.[4]

The books of accounts are the reflection of the company’s financial standing. They act as an important tool on which investors can rely on before investing their money. Accounts books were manipulated to cheat investors and shareholders.

The whole scam cost approximately ₹14,000 crore and is considered to be an important factor which contributed to the recession of 2009.[5]

In this scandal, SEBI hit back strongly, holding Ramalinga Raju and nine major associates and guilty of insider trading, indulging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SEBI directed accused to pay approximately ₹3000 crore within 45 days and also debarred them from accessing the security markets in any way for 14 years.[6] SEBI managed to lash back strongly to ensure such a scam never happened again.

3. Ketan Parekh Security Scam

Protagonist – Ketan Parekh  

Parekh was involved in circular trading and stock manipulation through 1999-2001. He borrowed from banks like Global trust Bank and Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative bank and manipulated a host of stocks known as K-10 stocks.[7] The scandal amount was approximately ₹ 1,250 Crore. He has spent only one year in jail, but he has been debarred from trading in the Indian Stock market till 2017.

Although his name continues to haunt the street as he has been accused of playing from backstage. An Intelligence Bureau Report alleged Parekh and his associates to be engaged in circular and insider trading through front entities.

4. Saradha chit fund case

Protagonist- Sudipta Sen  

Saradha Group financial Scandal was a major financial scam and alleged political scandal caused by the collapse of Ponzi scheme run by Saradha Group, a consortium of 200 private companies that were believed to be running collective investment schemes popularly and wrongly referred to as Chit Fund.[8] This group collected around ₹200 to ₹300 billion from over 1.7 million depositors, promising a multiplied hefty sum in return in the form of cash or real estate and other assets.[9]

At least 10 Saradha group entities were alleged for committing fraud through public money-pooling activities. Amidst continuing public protest against the group’s alleged fraudulent activities, SEBI barred Saradha Realty India and its managing director Sudipta Sen from the securities market till it winds up all the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and makes the refund, as the same amounts to CIS Violation.[10]

The central government through income tax department and Enforcement Directorate launched a multi-agency probe to investigate the Saradha Scam and similar Ponzi scheme. Later, in May 2014 Supreme Court of India, alleging possible international money laundering, severe regulatory failures an alleged political nexus, referred this case to CBI, India’s federal investigation agency.[11] Many prominent personalities were arrested for their involvement in the scam including two Members of Parliament- Kunal Ghosh, Srinjoy Bose, former West Bengal director general of police- Rajat Majumdar, a top football club official Debabrata Sarkar, Sports and Transport minister in the Trinamool Congress government Madan Mitra.

This scam is often compared to the Sanchayita investment scam, a multi-crore rupees scam that occurred in West Bengal in the 1970s, complaints related to the same have to lead to the formation of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1968.[12]

5. Punjab National Bank Fraud

Protagonist- Nirav Modi  

Nirav Modi is a diamantaire, elite jewelry designer and India’s 85^th richest person.

Bank said that Modi and the companies linked to him colluded with its officials to get guarantees or Letter of Undertaking to help fund buyer’s credit from other overseas banks.[13]

PNB’s preliminary investigation showed that two officials of the bank had fraudulently issued Lou’s to the said firms without following the due procedure. These Los were then transmitted across the SWIFT messaging system, based on which the credit was offered to the said firms.[14]

PNB alleged that the funds ostensibly so raised for the purchase and sale of diamonds were not used for the purpose.

PNB issued to the stock exchange, about the detection of the fraudulent and unauthorized transaction. PNB has incurred $1.8 billion fraud, one of the largest to be detected in Indian Banking Sector.[15]

Read Also: Taxpayers Don’t Fall For These Types of Tax Scams in India

[1] “THE GROWTH OF SEBI – FROM HARSHAD MEHTA TO SUBRATA ROY” (PDF) <https://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/73899378-The-growth-of-sebi-from-harshad-mehta-to-subrata-roy.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Datta D and Datta D, “Ramalinga Raju And The Incredible Story Of India’s Greatest White Collar Crime” (HuffPost India July 15, 2016) <https://www.huffingtonpost.in/devangshu-datta/ramalinga-raju-and-the-in_b_7032688.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nimmi (KETAN PAREKH SCAM) <https://www.indianmirror.com/indian-industries/indian-scams/ketanparekhscam.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[8] “Here’s Why Saradha Was Not a Chit Fund but a Ponzi Scheme” (first post-December 20, 2014) <https://www.firstpost.com/business/heres-why-saradha-was-not-a-chit-fund-but-a-ponzi-scheme-739597.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[9] Ibid

[10] “Saradha Chit Fund Scam: Mercedes of Sudipta Sen’s Son Seized” (The Economic TimesMay 7, 2013) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/saradha-chit-fund-scam-mercedes-of-sudipta-sens-son-seized/articleshow/19937529.cms?from=mdr> accessed May 13, 2019.

[11] Reporters BS, “SC Jolt for Mamata: CBI to Probe Saradha Scam” (Business StandardMay 9, 2014) <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-jolt-for-mamata-cbi-to-probe-saradha-scam-114050900345_1.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[12] Mukherji UP, Bandyopadhyay K, and TNN, “Sanchayita Haunts Saradha Victims | Kolkata News-Times of India” (The Times of IndiaMay 13, 2019) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Sanchayita-haunts-Saradha-victims/articleshow/19656723.cms> accessed May 13, 2019.

[13] “Nirav Modi Case: How PNB Has Defrauded of Rs 11,400 Crore” (Business TodayMarch 15, 2018) <https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/nirav-modi-case-pnb-fraud-11400-crore-scam-ed-cbi-raid/story/270708.html> accessed May 11, 2019.

[14] Desk BQ, “The Nirav Modi-PNB Fraud Case: Everything We Know So Far” (BloombergQuintFebruary 17, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/the-nirav-modi-pnb-fraud-case-everything-we-know-so-far> accessed May 11, 2019.

[15] Nair V, “The Nirav Modi Case: How The $1.8 Billion Fraud Detected At PNB Unfolded” (BloombergQuintFebruary 19, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/pnb-fraud/the-nirav-modi-case-how-the-18-billion-fraud-detected-at-pnb-unfolded> accessed May 11, 2019.

Original blog is published in Legodesk please read full blog for legal service

Manage your Legal practice with Legodesk helps you to manage your clients, do legal research, grow your practice and much more 

7 Quick Tips Regarding Contract Of Indemnity

What is Contract Of Indemnity?

Contract of indemnity meaning is a special kind of contract. The term ‘indemnity’ literally means “security or protection against a loss” or compensation. According to Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872  “A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.”  

Example: P contracts to indemnify Q against the consequences of any proceedings which R may take against Q in respect of a certain sum of money.

OBJECTIVE OF CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY

The objective of entering into a contract of indemnity is to protect the promisee against unanticipated losses.

PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY

A contract of indemnity has two parties.

1. The promisor or indemnifier
2. The promisee or the indemnified or indemnity-holder

The promisor or indemnifier: He is the person who promises to bear the loss.

The promisee or the indemnified or indemnity-holder: He is the person whose loss is covered or who are compensated.

In the above-stated example,

• P is the indemnifier or promisor as he promises to bear the loss of Q.
• Q is the promisee or the indemnified or indemnity-holder as his loss is covered by P.

Read Also: What are the Remedies for Breach of Contract

ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY

1. PARTIES TO A CONTRACT: There must be two parties, namely, promisor or indemnifier and the promisee or indemnified or indemnity-holder.
2. PROTECTION OF LOSS: A contract of indemnity is entered into for the purpose of protecting the promisee from the loss. The loss may be caused due to the conduct of the promisor or any other person.
3. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED: The contract of indemnity may be express (i.e. made by words spoken or written) or implied (i.e. inferred from the conduct of the parties or circumstances of the particular case).
4. ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT: A contract of indemnity is a special kind of contract. The principles of the general law of contract contained in Section 1 to 75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are applicable to them. Therefore, it must possess all the essentials of a valid contract.

• NUMBER OF CONTRACTS: In a contract of Indemnity, there is only one contract that is between the Indemnifier and the Indemnified.

• RIGHTS OF PROMISEE/ THE INDEMNIFIED/ INDEMNITY HOLDER

As per Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the following rights are available to the promisee/ the indemnified/ indemnity-holder against the promisor/ indemnifier, provided he has acted within the scope of his authority.

1. RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES PAID IN A SUIT [SECTION 125(1)]: An indemnity-holder has the right to recover from the indemnifier all damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the contract of indemnity applies.
2. RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS INCURRED IN DEFENDING A SUIT [SECTION 125(2)]: An indemnity-holder has the right to recover from the indemnifier all costs which he may be compelled to pay in any such suit if, in bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to bring or defend the suit.
3. RIGHT TO RECOVER SUMS PAID UNDER COMPROMISE [SECTION 125(3)]: An indemnity-holder also has the right to recover from the indemnifier all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.

Read Also: Frustration of Contract

COMMENCEMENT OF LIABILITY OF PROMISOR/ INDEMNIFIER

Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not provide the time of the commencement of the indemnifier’s liability under the contract of indemnity. But different High Courts in India have held the following rules in this regard:

• Indemnifier is not liable until the indemnified has suffered the loss.
• Indemnified can compel the indemnifier to make good his loss although he has not discharged his liability.

In the leading case of Gajanan Moreshwar vs. Moreshwar Madan(1942), an observation was made by the judge that “ If the indemnified has incurred a liability and the liability is absolute, he is entitled to call upon the indemnifier to save him from the liability and pay it off”.

Thus, Contract of Indemnity is a special contract in which one party to a contract (i.e. the indemnifier) promises to save the other (i.e. the indemnified) from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person. Section 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are applicable to these types of contracts.

 Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.

10 Small But Important Things To Observe In Section 139 Of Negotiable Instruments Act

Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments act, 1881

As per the prevailing laws in India, under the Indian Evidence Act, every person until proven guilty is presumed to be innocent. Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 talks about the liability of a person who is issuing a cheque which has been dishonored. Such a person is presumed to be guilty until and unless he proves his innocence. When an offense under section 138 is constituted, there is a set of admitted facts and situations where it is presumed that the person is guilty.[3]

In Krishi Vikas Kendra v Mukund[4], the amount due was paid partly by the accused. This amounts to a transaction made and the court held that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence with respect to dishonored cheque.

Under section 139 there is a presumption that a cheque presented is for a discharge of the liability of debt either partially or wholly. And until and unless the respondent purposes any purpose other than the discharge of liability, it shall be presumed under section 138.[5] The accused person cannot merely escape by saying it was only given as security and the day cheque was issued there was no liability towards the person.[6]

Once the presumption of liability is rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to prove that the same cheque was issued for discharge of liability.[7] In the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan[8], it was held that if to any fact the accused has not replied in the statutory notice (notice under section 138) proves to be a merit for the complainant side.

This presumption is governed by the rule of evidence which is dealt by in section 118(a) of chapter XIII. Section 140 talks about the possible grounds which may not be allowed as a ground of defense for prosecution under section 138.

In the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hedge[9],

“Presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden which is granted under section 139 should be balanced with respect to the facts of each case, material evidence on record and governing statutes of law.”[10]

For it is a presumption only with regard to existing debts. So, if the amount on the cheque exceeds the amount which is due to the person, then section 138 and section 139 shall not be attracted, this was held in the case of Angu Parameswari Textiles P Ltd. v. Sri Rajan and co.[11]

On the reading of this section, it is pertinent to highlight that court which is taking cognizance should be prima facie satisfied that the case is attracted under this section. The drawer of the cheque gets a chance to rebut this presumption at the trial.[12]

In the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda[13], the SC held that section 1309 cannot be merely rebutted by denial. It has to be proved. The matter in controversy shall be proven to be denied with evidence.

This presumption is however not available to a money lender. He has to prove the fact of due of loan and liability through other evidence and not merely by a presumption of being guilty.[14]

The initial burden after discharged, Section 139 comes into the picture. In the case of A.B.M raja Sah v. B.M.S. Srinivas Sah[15], it was held that once signatures on the cheque were verified by the drawer and he s presumption arose and the accused couldn’t explain the liability. The court ordered the accused to pay twice the amount of the cheque and no sentence was passed.

CONCLUSION

When a cheque which was issued for discharge of liability or debt whether in whole or in part, shall under section 139 be presumed that the accused is liable for the offense under section 138 and thus the accused is under the burden of proof to prove its innocence.

[1] Added by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988

[2] Goa Plast (P) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D’Souza, (2004) 1 BC 246 (SC)

[3] R. Sankaralingam v. Union of India; (1997) 1 BC 541

[4] (2007) 3 BC 542

[5] K. I George v. Muhammed Master

[6] K.N.Bena v. Muniyappan (2006) 4 BC 287

[7] Pine Products Industries v. RP Gupta and sons

[8] (2010) 11 SC 441

[9] 2008 (1) SCALE 421

[10] M.L. Tannan’s Banking Law and Practice in India, Student Edition, 2015

[11] (2002) 1 BC 99 (mad)

[12] Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, (1998) 1 BC 421 (SC)

[13] Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018

[14] M. senguttuvan v. Mahedevaswamy, (2007) 4 BC 708 (Kant)

[15][15] (2007) 4 BC 649 (Mad)