.....of the respondent. that aspect is found missing. the evidence which has been led by the petitioner is not specific. the role of each and every person being summoned is also not specified as to how amount was paid and to whom. it will be for the trial court to see whether this evidence would be sufficient to summon these persons as an additional accused or not. if during the cours.of trial some evidence appears.the petitioner would be at liberty to move fresh application for summoning these persons as an additional accused. the present order would not act as a bar in this regard. criminal misc.-m no.8493 o”3. the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise these pleas at an appropriate stage before the trial court. march 04, 2013 ( ranjit singh ) reena judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the revisional authority, indicates that the revision petition was dismissed being not maintainable and claim of the petitioner was not considered on merits. learned counsel for the respondents could not justify as to how the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. in view of this fact, learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that the order of the revisional authority be set aside and the matter be remanded to the revisional authority with a direction to decide the revision filed by the petitioner on merits. consequently, the order dated 20.8.2008 (annexure p-6) passed by the revisional authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority with a direction to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner on merits, after hearing both the parties, by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. disposed of accordingly. ( satish kumar mittal ) judge march 04, 2013 ( amol rattan singh ) ndj judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....respondent no.2 filed an appeal which stands dismissed in default under order ix rule 8 c.pc. by the additional district judge, ludhiana on 18.5.2002. as of date the petitioner has been successful in execution of the agreement to sell and for the reason that the suit filed by him against respondent no.2 was decreed by the trial court. therefore, he has a right to be heard in the suit for partition preferred by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2. the aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by counsel for the respondents. in such a situation, the petitioner becomes necessary and proper party in the suit for partition. in view of the aforementioned, the revision is accepted, impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under order i rule 10 c.p.c.stands allowed. ( t.p.s.mann ) march 04, 2013 judge satish
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the applicants (respondents nos.4 to 7 herein) has already been redressed, no further order was called for. learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the report dated 14.9.2012 made by the divisional canal officer is factually incorrect because the application moved by the private respondents was for sanctioning the permanent watercourse. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record of the case, the divisional canal officer, jui, water services division, bhiwani-respondent no.2 is directed to consider the application dated 3.11.2011 moved on behalf of respondents nos.4 to 7 seeking the sanctioning of permanent watercours.by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law and after granting due opportunity of being heard to both the parties. respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the matter at an early date and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. with the observations made above, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 04.03.2013 (rameshwar singh malik) mks judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the present petition deserves to be accepted, lacks merit.6. as is evident from the record that, the trial court after taking into consideration the facts that, the wife has no independent source of income, to maintain herself and her two school going minot sons, the petitioner-husband is residing with his second wife at delhi after deserting the respondents and the evidence brought on record by the parties, partly accepted the petition under section 125 cr.p.c. filed by the respondents(wife and her children), in the manner depicted here-in- above, by way of impugned order dated 04.03.2010(annexure p-1).7. not only that, the matter was again re-examined and the revisional court negated all the pleas of the petitioner-husband, not sought to be urged and dismissed the revision petition filed by him through the medium of impugned judgment dated 28.01.2011(annexure p-2), which in substance is as under:-“12. therefore, in these circumstances, though the revision petitioner has denied the fact that he is doing the business of finance but in my opinion, learned trial court rightly disbelieved his stand. if he would have no source of crm not m-18281 o”3. income, he would have not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the petitioners were found innocent during investigation and challan was presented against yadwinder singh, paramjit singh and kala. at the trial, an application was made under section 319 cr.p.c.for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. the application was allowed and the petitioners are before this court seeking pre-arrest bail. since the main accused sent for trial by the police, namely, yadwinder singh, paramjit singh and kala have been granted bail, the petitioners who were found innocent during investigation and summoned under section 319 cr.p.c.are definitely entitled to bail. consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 23.01.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made absolute. march 04,2013 (vijender singh malik ) jiten judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted because illegal colonies are playing havoc on various services being provided to legal colonies. the petitioner has not obtained any license for carving out the colony because he has to shell out huge amount for obtaining the license by way of development charges and other amounts to be paid. the purchasers also suffer having purchased plots in illegal colony. keeping in view the almost admitted factual position of selling plots by the petitioner without license, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. dismissed in limine, without meaning to comment anything on merits of the case. 4th march, 2013 (l.n.mittal) ‘raj’ judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....writ petition. after issuance of notice of motion, the petitioner was paid various amounts. the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by this court reads thus: “learned counsel for respondent no.2 has handed over a cheque bearing no.356297 dated 26.11.2012, issued by uco bank, for the amount of ` 92,213, to the counsel for the petitioner on account of arrears of increment to which the petitioner was entitled to. learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner for revised pension has been recommended to the pension cell which will be finalized civil writ petition no.7760 of 2012 (o&m) 2 very soon. for the other reliefs, claimed in this petition, the matter is under consideration. adjourned to 14.02.2013.” thereafter, an additional reply was filed on behalf of the commissioner, municipal corporation, ludhiana stating that all the dues of the petitioner have been released. still the petitioner was not satisfied and in those circumstances the petitioner was directed to file an additional affidavit. the additional affidavit has been placed on record today by filing cm no.3626 of 2013, which is allowed and the said affidavit is taken on record. an additional status.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....may be noticed which reads thus: “in spite of various opportunities granted, compliance of the order in question has not been made despite the fact that lpa no.267 of 2013 challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed in cwp no.15940 of 2009 has been dismissed. cocp no.697 of 2012(o&m) 2 list on 4th march, 2013. to be shown in the urgent list. if the compliance is not reported before the date fixed, mr.d.k.goel, deputy secretary, ministry of home affairs.govt. of india, ndcc-ii building, jai singh road, new delhi shall be present in court. copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.” counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 has also been filed through sh. d.k.goel, deputy secretary, ministry of home affairs.ffr division, ndcc-ii, sansad marg, new delhi. the said officer is also present in court. in this affidavit, it has been stated that government of india has issued the sanction for grant of swatantrata sainik samman pension to the petitioner vide order dated 27.2.2013 (annexure r-1) and thus, the directions have been complied with. ms.anita garg, learned counsel representing the respondents, on instructions from sh. d.k.goel, deputy.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....permanent alimony. an affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2 in support of the plea of compromise and quashing of fir on the said basis. she is also present in the court and has got her statement recorded separately to the aforesaid effect and she has been duly identified by the learned counsel representing her. having regard to the aforesaid fact in totality that the dispute had arisen on account of matrimonial differences, which the parties have since resolved and keeping in view the observations made by the full bench in kulwinder singh v. state of punjab reported as 2007(3) law herald 2225 and of hon'ble supreme court in gian singh versus st. of punjab reported as 2012(4) rcr (civil) 543, instant petition is accepted. consequently, fir no.58 dated 09.8.2010, under sections 406, 498-a, 34 ipc, registered at police station phase-8, sas nagar, mohali, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. march 04, 2013 ( mahesh grover ) vijay asija judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT