|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 631 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1746 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quences of arrest under section 41 of the Code and arrest under a warrant under section 70 of the Code are different and as such, the petitions are required to be decided on merits. It is in these circumstances, that though pursuant to the impugned order, the warrant under section 70 of the Code has already been executed, the Court has deemed it fit to decide the matter on merits. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat below the application dated 19.10.2013, is hereby quashed and set aside. As the petitioners have already been arrested, they shall be treated as having been arrested in exercise of powers under section 41 of the Code. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 30. At this stage, Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for stay of the present judgment. Having regard to the facts of the case, the request is declined.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1745 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat from 1993 to 2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land rates. Therefore, we would like to enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent). When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to Rs. 770/- per square yard. After making a deduction of one-third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs. 514/- per square yard. Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed at Rs. 350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50% over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much compensation is legitimately due to the Appellants. We, accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs. 514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the Appellants. 12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1744 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r to cross-examine the said witness on the aspect relating to the statement, namely, Sister Mina Baruwa identified accused Santosh Patnaik as the said suspect gave her a slap, pulled her wearing Saree, squeezed her breasts and did not commit any other overt act vis- -vis the contents of the statement recorded by PW-18 in Exhibit-8 at the time of test identification parade when the Appellant as PW-25 identified the Respondent No. 9 as has been prayed for on behalf of the Appellant and also provide an opportunity to the Appellant to file the written arguments on her behalf as provided Under Section 301 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the trial was withheld by virtue of the pendency of this appeal till this date, the trial Court is directed to comply with the directions as above and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of the copy of this order. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1738 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime and also in all the subsequent proceedings contemplated by Cr.P.C., which take place right from lodging of an FIR till decision in appeal or revision. 10. The transfer of the sessions trial in question from Guna to Shivpuri was admittedly made without hearing the victim, which is evident from reading of the order which is sought to be recalled. The transfer certainly causes prejudice to the victim as he has a right not only to know the venue of conduction of trial, but also to oppose on cogent grounds an attempt of transfer of trial made on any ones behest out of territorial jurisdiction of the competent Court within whose purviews the crime was committed. 11. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the order sought to be recalled herein has been passed without hearing the victim and, therefore is vitiated. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2012 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 9261/2012 is recalled. The M. Cr. C. No. 9261/2012 is restored to its original number.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1734 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nied his signatures on the same by claiming that his signatures were obtained as a witness on the said Pronote and Receipt in good faith in the year 2003. The learned trial Court has, by referring to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that there is no scientific method available for determining the age of the “ink”. In the opinion of this Court said view is correct and even otherwise the stand in the written statement is that the defendant has affixed his signatures as a witness and not as a borrower and therefore, said question even otherwise would become academic. Dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1732 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. 12. Further, having regard to the age of the appellant at the time of committing the offences, we feel it would not be just and proper to allow the sentences to run consecutively. As the offences committed by the appellant have been committed under a single transaction, it is well settled position of law that the sentences must run concurrently and not consecutively. 13. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for in this case and the sentences are modified to run concurrently and not consecutively and for this reason, we hold that the sentence must be reduced to 10 years in total with regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, as also keeping in view the tender age of the appellant on the date of the offence. 14. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms by modifying the judgment of the High Court, by reducing the sentence to 10 years in total, the remainder of which he must serve.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle in relation to exercise of powers under Section 311 of Cr.PC. That was a case where statement under Section 313 was yet to be recorded and before that, defence had adduced certain evidence and it is at that point of time that the application for additional evidence came to be made by the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the circumstances therefor. The facts of that case and the present case do not warrant any comparison. The Courts below rightly found that the case under Section 138 of the NI Act was being tried in a summary way and the petitioner had all the opportunity to place on record the evidence during the trial. This Court is in broad agreement with the impugned orders wherein concurrent findings are recorded and exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such a case are not warranted. The petition, therefore, must fail and is accordingly summarily rejected.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1727 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Information Report was also sent to the Reserve Bank of India and it appears that the Reserve Bank of India has, in turn, sent this information to the Directorate of Enforcement which has taken cognizance under the said Act. 5. On the last occasion, learned Assistant Solicitor General was directed to apprise this Court in the matter, therefore, Mr. Pradeep Joshi appears in the Court today and submits that the Enforcement Directorate is presently looking into the matter, and investigation is going on and not only the petitioner but various officials of the Bank, including the person who is named in the F.I.R. have been summoned, and the investigation is in process. 6. In view of the above, no interference is presently called for. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India shall complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in which the petitioner must give all the necessary cooperation.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1723 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re he would be residing abroad prior to his departure; (d) He shall report to the aforesaid Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, BS&FC, Calcutta on a daily basis over telephone, the number whereof would also be furnished before hand; (e) He shall return to Calcutta on or before 14th January, 2014 and within 24 hours thereof hand over his passport to the aforesaid Superintendent of Police and would positively personally appear in the Trial Court on 20.01.2014; 15. Central Bureau of Investigation authorities shall satisfy itself as to whether the above mentioned conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) have been complied with and thereupon hand over the passport to the petitioner without unnecessary delay and also render all necessary assistance so that the petitioner may avail of this order. The instant revisional application is, accordingly, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1720 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been paid by the appellants/defendants to the respondents/plaintiffs, it is deemed proper to list the matter before the worthy Registrar General for determination on the said aspect. The parties to appear before the worthy Registrar General on 28th January, 2014. The appellants/defendants to at least one week before the said date, file with advance copy to the counsel for the respondents/plaintiff, a statement showing the payments if any made for the aforesaid period together the proof thereof. If the respondents/plaintiffs controvert the same, the worthy Registrar General shall adjudicate the said dispute and upon adjudication thereof, the amount if any found due to the respondents/plaintiffs as per decree of this Court shall be got paid to the respondents/plaintiffs out of the amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- deposited by the appellants/defendants in this Court and the balance amount if any together with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the appellants/defendants.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tegorical, in that he specifically avers wrongdoing on behalf of Mr. Mehra, a fact which, whether ultimately true or not, deserves to be tested during the ordinary course of trial. The fact that Mr. Nanda and his lawyers have allegations of forgery pending against them in unrelated trials, or that FIRs have been registered against them, does not allow this Court to reach the conclusion that its findings based on well-established jurisprudence surrounding decree on admissions are to be reviewed or set aside. Crucially, this Court, neither in its judgment of 10.04.2012 nor in the present review expresses any opinion on the merits of the claims advanced by either party, but only reiterates that these claims must be tested at trial. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Court finds no errors apparent or sufficient cause to recall its judgment and order dated 10.04.2012. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed along with pending application, but with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1707 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vene in the present case. They will be shown as intervenor in the cause-title. Amended cause-title shall be filed within two weeks. 47. Pursuant to the order dated 21-10-20135, additional affidavit has been filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that further additional affidavit needs to be filed by the Government of India to clarify certain position. Same may be done within three weeks. 48. Mr Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners also prays for time as he would like to respond to the additional affidavit filed by the Government of India on 12-12-2013. Moreover, he submits that certain information is needed from the Government of India for which he submits that an appropriate request will be made to them. 49. In view of the above, we permit the petitioners to file response to the additional affidavit of the Government of India within two weeks therefrom. List both matters on 31-1-2014.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1703 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Empowered Standing Committee dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure-4), it clearly indicates that they had considered the two panels. They had not disapproved it. Approval was a fait accompli. 6. Thus again, the action of the Municipal Commissioner cannot be sustained either in fact or in law. It is, accordingly, quashed. Annexure-3 and consequential order, as contained in Annexure-5, are set aside. The decision of the Municipal Commissioner to appoint other persons ignoring the panel made on 5.3.2013 cannot be sustained. 7. Before parting, I may point out that Municipal Corporation is nothing but a form of local self-Government. The Corporation has to function upon decisions by the Corporators. The Municipal Commissioner there is to carry out the directions of the Corporators. He is not an authority above the Corporators. He has to serve the Corporators and not vice versa. The sooner he realizes his position the better will be for the democratic institution. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1696 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he suit property was a self-acquired property by operation of law as discussed hereinabove, both when the grandfather later when the father inherited it. The plaint was devoid of any particulars setting up a claim through an HUF. Therefore, the arguments of the appellant are untenable. 6. There is a body of authority to the effect that though a family might be joint, there is no presumption that property of someone is HUF property. Understood from this perspective, the appellant-plaintiff was under an obligation to prove in the first instance that his grandfather's acquired the suit property through devolution of HUF interest. He clearly did not adduce any evidence in support of such claim. Consequently, the Single Judge's finding that succession was to be in terms of Section 8, cannot be faulted. 7. We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with the applications.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1689 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ected to reexamine and reassess the candidature of the petitioner for promotion by considering his qualifications as graduate, and in terms of Para 17.2.1 of the Policy of 2008 he is declared en-titled for the requisite marks under the Qualifications head. The respondents are directed to undertake this exercise afresh, and if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion after reassessment of his merit and suitability, then requisite consequential orders be issued in this behalf after making room for him by demoting the incumbent lowest in the ranking list to maintain cadre strength. In case the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, then he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date the incumbents lower in ranking list were promoted in the cadre of Assistant. The respondents are directed to make compliance of the directions as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1688 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... llant(s) will be liable to pay the arrears of tax along with interest, as may be determined by this Court under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 2007, at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The request of the learned senior counsel appears to be reasonable and if it is granted it would not prejudice the case of the respondents in any manner whatsoever. In view of the above, we accept the prayer so made by Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1683 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... holders at the time the allotment was made 10. In the case before this Court, as noted earlier Mr. Davender Kumar Gupta & Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta always continued to hold more than 50 per cent shares in the petitioner-Company. Therefore, control of the Company never shifted from them to an outsider. In fact, they along with Smt. Anju Gupta, continued to hold more than 71 per cent shares in the Company and as on today both of them have 100 per cent shares in the petitioner-Company as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company. Therefore, in the case before this Court, the respondent is not entitled to recover any unearned increase from the petitioner-Company. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Company within six (6) weeks from today subject to completion of all formalities, if any, in this regard. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1682 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. If the petitioner violates the building plan without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it would cause inconvenience to the neighbours. The proposed party is one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest, in view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though no relief is claimed against him, he would be necessary and proper party to come on record. That is why the trial Court rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.” 11 . In our view, the High Court was not at all justified to review the order dated 08.06.2011. 12. The impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is, accordingly, set aside. Appeals are allowed as above. No costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1681 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom all encumbrances. Thus, in case possession of the land has been taken, application for release of land from acquisition is not maintainable. Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested. (See LT. Governor of H.P. & Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3581; and Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2962). 14. In view of the above, we do not think it necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petitions particularly, the competence of the Hon'ble Minister to deal with the matter. 15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Act 1894.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1669 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in any particular Bench, what they are expected to do is to put up a note in the order sheet, bringing the said fact to the notice of the learned Judge and list the Writ Petition before the Court for preliminary hearing. It is the learned Judge alone who has the jurisdiction to decide the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition. The learned Judge may in his or her discretion decide the question either before ordering notice or after the appearance of the respondent. Therefore, the Registry cannot raise the said office objection and call upon the petitioner to satisfy them before the Writ Petition is listed for preliminary hearing. Hence, the office objection is unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is over ruled. We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance given by the learned Advocate General Prof. Ravivarma Kumar as well as Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel, in rendering this judgment.
........
|
