.....14. on the other hand, mr. godinho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants no. 3 to 8 submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by two courts below. he submitted that there were inventory proceedings in this case in which the property was allotted to the said defendants and, therefore, the question of filing suit for partition did not arise. the learned counsel submitted that there may be no disputeinsofar as an area of 623 square metres is concerned. however, he added that it was for the plaintiffs to have amended the plaint and claimed the said area of 623 square metres by properly identifying the same on the sketch. he, therefore, urged that nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeal and hence, the appeal is bound to be dismissed. 15. i have gone through the material on record. i have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 16. i am of the view that the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings insofar as the factual matrix is concerned and there is absolutely no perversity in the said findings rendered by both the courts. in the regular civil suit no.9/81/d, the learned.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the learned sessions judge, bhandara in sessions trial no. 57/2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of indian penal code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2) the prosecution case, in brief, is as under: accused kisan and deceased ramratan were residents of village chandpur. their houses were situated at the distance of about 200 feet from each other. prior to occurrence of the incident, there was a gram panchayat election. deceased ramratan was supporting munna raut and ranjana raut whereas accused was supporting jaswant hinge and benubai lanje. during the course of election, quarrel took place between accused and deceased ramratan. at that time, accused had given a threat to deceased ramratan. 3) on 16/4/2008, at about 10.30 a.m., deceased ramratan was standing in front of house of jaswantabai sahare. at that time, accused came near deceased ramratan and inflicted injuries by iron chopper on his neck and left shoulder. p.w.3 kejram intervened and tried to rescue deceased ramratan. as such, he also sustained.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in second appeal, as observed in f. m irani vs. sardar, 2001 (2) mh.l.j. 654 only substantial question of law should be entertained and findings of facts must not be interfered as legal lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled in at the stage of the second appeal. in other words, illegality would remain as it is. it is contended that legality and validity of membership is subject of the inquiry under section 22, which is judicial. learned counsel for the respondent submitted this court ought not to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below. 8. in hero vinoth (minor) vs. seshammal, (2006) 5 scc 545, hon'ble supreme court has observed that : "the general rule is that high court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. but it is not an absolute rule. some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. when we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....4, 2004 about appellant's resignation. it is not even the case of the complainants that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. these facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date the offence was committed by the company, the appellant was not the director; he had nothing to do with the affairs of the company. in this view of the matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of the court.? 6. it is thus clear from the abovesaid judgment, the high court in exercise of its powers under section 482 or 397 of the criminal procedure can look into the materials which shall have significant bearing on the matter at the trial stage. it is thus clear that uncontroverted document or evidence can be taken into consideration by the high court in exercise of powers under section 482 of the criminal procedure code. the hon'ble supreme court has said that it is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by the respondent no. 1, the petitioner very well knew that the respondent no. 1 had forwarded the said order to the secretary panchayats since this fact has been mentioned in the order dated 18/10/2011, itself. therefore, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner ought to have shown diligence by finding out from the office of the secretary panchayats as to what happened to the said reference. be that as it may, the petitioner herself has stated in the application dated 04/10/2012 for amendment that the respondent no. 3, upon being served of the revision application, has filed reply contending that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application, at this stage, since the secretary for panchayats (government of goa) has already heard the parties in the matter and has passed the final order on 28/12/2011, thereby confirming the order dated 18/10/2011 of the respondent no. 1. this reply (preliminary objections) was filed by the respondent no. 3 before the respondent no. 1 on 01/02/2012. thus, at least on 01/02/2012, the petitioner, for sure, knew that the secretary panchayats has already.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passengers at the time of accident. he has pointed out from the evidence of pw 1-smt. sujata (exhibit-38) that what she has admittedly is only a fact which she has learnt from the newspaper and nothing more. he submits that when pw 1, smt. sujata, admits that the jeep owner was not the friend of her husband, it would not necessarily and conclusively mean that her husband was travelling by jeep at the relevant time on paying fare to the owner or driver of the jeep. he submits that whenever a defence of breach of conditions of the policy, although in the written statement no such defence is seen to be raised by the respondent no.1, is taken by the insurance company, the burden to prove such defence squarely lies upon the insurance company. in support, he places his reliance upon the law laid down by the honble apex court in the case of kamala mangalal vayani and others vs. united india insurance company limited and others, reported in (2010) 12 scc 488. he further submits that the respondent no.1 did not adduce any other evidence to show that the deceased was travelling by the offending jeep as a fare paying passenger and, therefore, the conclusion reached in this regard by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 30-1-2013 passed by the deputy director land records, pune region, pune, came to be set aside. 3. the facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus: 4. the instant proceedings have arisen out of the application filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 herein being revision application no.523 of 2009 for re-measurement of survey no.254/2 situated at mouje hingangaon (shindewadi) tal kavthemahankal, dist sangli. by virtue of the said application the respondent nos.4 and 5 were seeking modification in the consolidation scheme which has been implemented in the village in question in the year 1970. the relief sought by way of the application filed by the said respondents was that their names should recorded in respect of the land admeasuring 80 ares in survey no.254/2 situated at the said village hingangaon (shindewadi). the application filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 therefore impinges upon the consolidation scheme relating to the land bearing gat no.355 old survey no.254/2 situated at village hingangaon (shindewadi). it was the case of the respondent nos.4 and 5 that the said 15 gunthas was the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....petitioner by the deputy chief executive officer on 22.4.2004 for commercial purpose i.e. for showroom on latur - barshi highway in manjara sugar factory chowk by charging the old rates prevailing on the date of proposal and further be directed to allot industrial plot in latur midc from b-36, e-53 or e-56, e-66 i.e. by charging the old rates prevailing on the date of proposal i.e. prevailing in 2001; (d) by issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the respondent nos.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for causing harassment and financial loss to the petitioner by delaying to allot the plots and the said compensation be deducted from the salary of erring officers, who were responsible for committing illegalities and irregularities." 5. shri pradip deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner and shri s.g.aney, learned sr. advocate on behalf of the respondent - midc have submitted the dates and events in the form of a synopsis before us. 6. we have heard shri pradip deshmukh at length and his submissions can be summarized, in brief, as follows:- (a) the petitioner made his first application for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order against respondent no.2. this is not even a case for want of reason of œpremature? transfer. the usual case of alleged complaints/unsatisfactory performance, though sought to be contended, but there is no supporting material placed on record to justify the case. the proposal for transfer was also not submitted and/or no prior consultation obtained as required under the act of 2005. the alleged case is of accommodating other than respondent no.2. there was no proposal forwarded to transfer both these employees. 5. respondent no.2 admittedly had not completed his tenure of three years when the transfer order was issued. even no prior approval of statutory authority for such midterm transfer was obtained at the relevant time. the submission that minister being the higher authority, without any consultation and/or without following the procedure so prescribed, can initiate the action of such mid-term transfer on the basis of the alleged complaint received in the year 2010, is unacceptable. impugned order of transfer is dated 02.08.2011. there is no dispute with regard to the requirement of prior consultation which is missing in the matter. after taking the note of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order against respondent no.2. this is not even a case for want of reason of œpremature? transfer. the usual case of alleged complaints/unsatisfactory performance, though sought to be contended, but there is no supporting material placed on record to justify the case. the proposal for transfer was also not submitted and/or no prior consultation obtained as required under the act of 2005. the alleged case is of accommodating other than respondent no.2. there was no proposal forwarded to transfer both these employees. 5. respondent no.2 admittedly had not completed his tenure of three years when the transfer order was issued. even no prior approval of statutory authority for such midterm transfer was obtained at the relevant time. the submission that minister being the higher authority, without any consultation and/or without following the procedure so prescribed, can initiate the action of such mid-term transfer on the basis of the alleged complaint received in the year 2010, is unacceptable. impugned order of transfer is dated 02.08.2011. there is no dispute with regard to the requirement of prior consultation which is missing in the matter. after taking the note of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT