.....no.1 fled from the spot alongwith the bus. fir no.79 dated 19.04.2012 was registered at police station siwani for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-a of the indian penal code. ram sawrup was 48 years old at the time of the accident. he was working as sub divisional agricultural officer, siwani and was drawing salary of rs.40,365/- per month. respondent no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte. respondent no.2 has denied in the written statement the taking place of the accident due to fault of respondent no.1 in driving the bus. it is claimed that respondent no.1 was falsely involved in the criminal case. kumar dinesh 2013.07.17 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court,chandigarh f.a.o. no.3593 of 2013 -3- learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this is a case of head-on collision . according to him, in case of head-on collision, the negligence would be contributory. according to him, learned tribunal has held the accident to be an outcome of sole rash and negligent driving of bus by respondent no.1. according to him, for this reason finding on issue no.1 is liable to be modified. in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....trial court and judgment dated 21.05.2013 annexure p-3 passed by the lower appellate court thereby dismissing application moved by petitioners under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure (in short, cpc) for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered vide order dated 26.08.2009 and for setting aside the consequent ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009. - 2- cr no.4079 of 2013 the petitioners alleged in their application that petitioner no.2 has since got married and petitioner no.1 was, therefore, pursuing the case on behalf of petitioner no.2 as well. however, due to ill health, petitioners could not contact their counsel and could not give instruction on 26.08.2009 and accordingly their counsel in the trial court pleaded ‘no instructions’ and ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioners on 26.08.2009 and ex parte judgment and decree were passed on 01.09.2009. the petitioners alleged that they were under the bonafide belief that they were being properly represented through the counsel. they learnt of the aforesaid order and judgment and decree when they contacted their counsel about fate and date in the case. the application was opposed by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and let some other person, who had murdered their father, go scot-free. their presence at the spot at 10.15 p.m. on 01.07.1996 was natural and the fact that the statement was got recorded at 6.30 a.m. on 02.07.1996 by pw13, asi nirmal singh would show that there was no delay and there was thus, no occasion for the witnesses to name any other person except the present appellant.10. in the investigation, the said empties were got recovered and deposited with the malkhana which would be clear from the affidavit of hc karaj singh (exhibit pd). the said parcels, containing the empties and the lead pieces alongwith the blood stained mattress, twine of cot and the blood stained earth, were handed over to constable resham singh on 17.07.1996 for depositing the same in the fsl, chandigarh and chemical examiner, patiala respectively. there were some objections regarding the deposit of 2 bullets at fsl, chandigarh and he, thus, brought them back and re-deposited them alongwith the road receipts on 19.07.1996. after removing the objections, the 2 empties along with 2 bullets were again given to constable resham singh for depositing in fsl which was duly done on 22.07.1996 which would be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....occupation and had also contended that the defendant panchayat itself was in possession or was exercising acts of possession, then the previous statement that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation could be taken to have been an accidental step or an unintended error. in no portion of the statement, there is any assertion that the defendant is in possession of the property or that there had been any acts of ownership or possession. the defendant was attempting to characterize the plaintiffs' possession as unauthorized and hence was disentitled to the relief for injunction. the amendment, which it is not trying to make, surely means withdrawal of an admission, which has been already made and not a correction of unintended error. dismissal of the application for amendment was justified and i do not find any reason for intervention. the revision petition is dismissed. july 11, 2013 (k.kannan) prem judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....kaur @ bhajan kaur (pw-2/complainant).who is the complainant and wife of the appellant and on the fateful day, fire had accidentally occurred and in fact the appellant had also received serious burn injuries out of the said accident. he also contended that a deep scrutiny of the testimony of pw-2 (narinder kaur @ bhajan kaur) would also go to show that the appellant had not committed these offences and it was an accident. appellant had also suffered 20% burn injuries out of the said accident and, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the fire had taken place accidentally and not otherwise. he also contended that the testimony of pw-2 (narinder kaur @ bhajan kaur) does not inspire confidence due to various discrepancies, therein. rather on the contrary, it has been admitted by the said witness that she had not seen the appellant while litting the fire and from this testimony, it cannot be proved that it was the appellant who committed the offences. he also contended that rather the defence taken by the appellant would be more plausible in the light of the fact that the appellant also received 20% burn injuries on his person while saving his wife and children. he.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....shall be to provide interim maintenance. the court that passes an order does so in a summary fashion on the contentions raised by the parties. a provision for `5,000/- for a wife and a child in these days of high costs cannot be said to be high even if the wife were to be earning some amount. i cannot take a bare contention that he is living on the streets. he has not fully disclosed of what he is actually doing and what income he is earning. the nature of proof at the interlocutory stage cannot be extracting and i would believe that the trial judge understands that a summary order is at all times passed on assessing the capacities of parties and the reasonable wants.”2. i will find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. the civil revision is dismissed. (k. kannan) judge july 11, 2013 archana
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....petition is totally misconceived. the petitioner was working as a contractual employee and, therefore, was governed by the terms of the employment. his services, therefore, could be terminated after the expiry of contract or even on the ground of his work and conduct being unsatisfactory. since the petitioner did not report for duty and proceeded on leave without any subsequent intimation to his employer, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever made any effort to inform the respondents regarding his inability to resume his work on account of his ailment. that being so, there is hardly any justification to interfere in the action of the respondents more particularly when c.w.p.no.14654 of 2013 -3- the writ petition has been filed after four years of the passing of the impugned order. the writ petition is, therefore, held to be without any merit besides being hit by delay and latches and the same is hereby dismissed. 11.7.2013 (mahesh grover) judge dss
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....mohinder 2013.08.13 15:31 i attest to the accuracy of this order chandigarh cwp no.4498 of 1993 and connected cases. [2].[2].for brevity, the facts are being extracted from cwp no.4498 of 1993. [3].the petitioners impugn the notifications dated may 17, 1990 and may 16, 1991, issued under sections 4 & 6 respectively of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’) whereby their land has been acquired for the afore-stated public purpose. the challenge though is laid on the ground that they were given no opportunity of hearing under section 5-a of the act and their objections have been rejected mechanically but essentially the petitioners seek the release of their acquired properties on the plea that they had constructed houses/structures much before the acquisition was proposed vide notification dated 17.5.1990 issued under section 4 of the act. the petitioners rely upon the reply-affidavit filed by the respondents wherein the factum of existence of construction by them before issuance of notification under section 4 of the act is duly admitted. [4].on illustrated basis, we may refer to the following averments made in the reply-affidavit of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....reversed and it is held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant in view of the provisions of electricity act. in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, when it is admitted from the side of the plaintiff-appellant itself that six electric motors were being run without having an electric connection, there was no occasion to grant any relief of declaration or permanent injunction as has been sought by the plaintiff-appellant. even otherwise, in view of the judgment of hon'ble supreme court dated 8.12.2010 passed in civil appeal no.5362 titled rs.no.2721 of 2013 (o&m) #3# as pseb versus m/s ranbaxy laboratories ltd.wherein it has been held that the civil court shall not be justified in entertaining the suit for declaration without directing the parties to avail the remedies provided under the electricity act, the learned firs.appellate has rightly returned the plaint for being presented before the appropriate appellate authority. no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for adjudication under section 100 cpc. dismissed. july 11,2013 ( jaswant singh ) manot judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....state to relax rule only to accommodate the petitioner whatsoever his sports achievements may be. comparative merit remains in the subjective satisfaction of the selection agency based on objective criteria while applying the test of outstanding sports persons in search of talent measured in the descending scale of clause-(2)(c)(ii).on facts it cannot be said that the selection should nullification either in its entirety or by picking out those which the petitioner perceives as lower in comparative merit. ms.kavita dalal-respondent no.14 and mr.joginder grewal-respondent no.21 or anyone for that matter placed on the select list fall clearly in the definition. both won two gold medals each in national junior championships, one for athletics while the other for wrestling, one in the cwp no.12522 of 2009 -4- junior level of the 22nd and 23rd national junior athletic championships at hyderabad and bangalore (kavita dalal) and the 24th and 25th junior boys national wrestling championship held at jharkhand and solan (joginder grewal).the definition of outstanding sports persons is structured in such manner that claimants should be recipients of arjuna award and bhim award; gold,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT