.....forum almost all documents were not submitted. however, perusal of papers shows that all the necessary documents were submitted to the appellant. therefore, we find that the district forum has appreciated properly the material placed before it. we are of the view that there is deficiency in providing service by the appellant and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the respondent no. l herein. hence, the district forum has rightly awarded compensation for accidental death of complainants husband and for mental agony with cost. there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. hence, order 1. appeal is dismissed. 2. both parties shall bear their own cost. 3. copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....mr. r. chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel, mr. b. nandi majumder for respondent no.1. none appeared for respondent no.2. 3. brief fact is that respondent no.1 (hereinafter mentioned as the âaccused), in the 1st part of september, 2004 requested the appellant (hereinafter mentioned as the âcomplainant) to lend her rs.2,50,000/- for her business purpose. pursuant to such request, the complainant lent the accused an amount of rs.2,31,000/- on condition that she will return the amount within six months. in terms thereof towards repayment of the loan amount the accused issued two cheques, bearing no.0460378 dated 08.12.2004 for rs.48,000/- and no.0460380 dated 27.01.2005 for rs.1,83,000/-, drawn on tripura gramin bank, agartala branch in favour of the complainant. on 11.02.2005 complainant tendered those cheques to the cooperative urban bank ltd., agartala branch where he maintained his account. on 02.04.2005 he was informed by his bank that the cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. on 04.04.2005, the complainant issued notice to the accused informing her dishonour of the cheques and also asked her to inform.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on behalf of the state seriously contested the case of the petitioner. according to him, the revision petition against the concurrent findings of fact regarding conviction of the petitioner is not maintainable in absence of any question of law. according to him, the entrustment has been established by the prosecution witnesses, p.ws. 14, 15 and 17. as regards the alleged deficiency in framing of charges is concerned, it is submitted that any irregularity in framing the charge does not ipso facto render the trial nullity, the same being only an irregularity, if any. on the question of grant of sanction by the complainant, it is submitted that unless prejudice and miscarriage of justice is established by the accused, any irregularity in sanction order does not in any manner vitiate the trial, particularly, when both the courts have concurrently recorded conviction. as regards the discrepancy in the amount is concerned, the argument is that the discrepancy is not substantial and prima facie case of misappropriation is established against the accused. 9. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. the accused/petitioner was posted as assistant.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and for quashing the orders of judicial magistrate ist class, solan, granting pardon to respondents no. 3, 4, under sections 306 cr.p.c. 2. the facts in brief, as per petitioner, are that an fir no.10/2009 dated 9.7.2009, has been registered at state vigilance and anti corruption bureau, solan against petitioner and one another. the respondent no. 2 is the complainant, but despite that he investigated the case. the respondent no. 2 was transferred from special investigation unit to police station, state vigilance and anti corruption bureau, shimla in july 2009; he had no power to investigate the case registered at police station, state vigilance and anti corruption bureau, solan. 3. the respondent no. 2 had personal interest in false implication of the petitioner, he threatened the respondents no. 3 to 6 and got their statements/ confessions recorded, under section 164 cr.p.c. before the judicial magistrate ist class, solan. the respondent no. 2 knew that it is only special judge, solan, who is competent to record such statements in view of provisions of prevention of corruption act, 1988 (for short, the act). the respondents no. 3 and 4 had earlier made statements before.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....trespasser has to be evicted in accordance with law. merely under the pretext that a direction is sought for to implement the orders of the 2nd respondent, virtually speaking, the petitioner is seeking for removal of the alleged encroachment without giving any notice/opportunity to the alleged encroacher. further, the property in question is not government property and even according to the petitioner the property is owned by her husband and therefore such a course will not be proper. the proper course is that the petitioner has to approach the competent civil court for appropriate remedy and in the facts and circumstance of the case, no writ in the nature of mandamus could be issued. hence the writ petition is dismissed. no costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by tamil nadu housing board and sold to the individuals. the present owners are either original allottees or subsequent purchasers. the undisputed fact is that the tamil nadu housing board has no lien over the property. for the purpose of developing the property, the first respondent orally insisted the petitioners that no objection certificate issued by the tamil nadu housing board should be submitted along with the application for the purpose of demolition, planning permission and for issuance of planning and building permit to put up new construction.4. similar issue with regard to the insistence of no objection certificate from tamil nadu housing board was considered by a division bench of this court in w.a.no.1052 of 2007 (the managing director - vs. - lancor g:crop properties limited & another) where it has been clearly held that the housing board has no right over property developed and sold to the individual allottees. the petitioners have enclosed sale deeds to show absolute ownership. the only restriction appears to be that the property developed for residential purpose should not be commercial use. the petitioners' plea is only for demolition and reconstruction.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....has awarded rs.35,000/- towards disability. the tribunal also awarded rs.5,000/- towards grievous injuries and rs.2,000/- towards multiple injuries. thus, the tribunal has priced the injuries. compensation cannot be based on the cost of injuries. compensation must be based on realistic principles. having awarded rs.35,000/- towards disability, the tribunal ought not to have awarded rs.7,000/- towards injuries. it requires to be deleted. towards pain and suffering, only rs.3,000/- has been awarded. it is raised to rs.5,000/-. towards nutritious food expenses, only rs.2,000/- has been awarded. during the treatment period, he has to take more nutritious food to recoup himself. hence, we make it rs.4,000/-. towards transportation charges only rs.1,000/- has been awarded. it is doubled. in other aspects we are not interfering with the award of the tribunal.6. the break up details of the modified award amount are as follows:7. in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. the award amount is reduced to rs.46,300/- with interest 9% p.a from the date of claim petition till deposit. the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the said modified award amount by filing proper petition.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no doubt, the findings reached by the courts below, that the tenancy month was ending with every 4th day of english calendar month, was purely on facts and it cannot be re-agitated before this court.14. however, the applicability of the amendment of section 106 of the transfer of property act cannot be agitated by the defendant that it is not applicable to the present case. admittedly, the present appeal was pending on the date of promulgation of the amendment act 3 of 2003. it is very clear in the transitory provision that the termination notice which was issued prior to the introduction of the amendment act and a suit or any proceedings pending therefrom could be attracted and applied with the said amended provisions. for better understanding, section 3 of the transfer of property (amendment) act, 2002 (3 of 2003) is extracted here under:-"3. transitory provision :- the provisions of section 106 of the principal act, as amended by section 2, shall apply to - (a) all notices in pursuance of which any suit or proceeding is pending at the commencement of this act; and (b) all notices which have been issued before the commencement of this act, but where no suit or.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and 32 of 2010 in mcop nos.36 and 37 of 2008 by the learned subordinate judge, bhavani, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. heard.3. the facts as stood uncurtained in the facts and circumstances of this case, would run thus:the motor accidents claims tribunal passed award in mcop nos.36 and 37 of 2008 mandating the respondents therein to pay compensation; whereupon the claimants/decree holders filed e.ps. as against the second respondent herein for bringing the property of r2 for sale, in the process of recovering the dues under the award. the counter was filed by the second respondent resisting the sale; whereupon the court dismissed the e.ps. on the main ground that already the said property was under a mortgage in favour of the canara bank, andhiyur.4. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, these revisions are filed on various grounds.5. the point for consideration is as to whether there is any legal impediment for bringing the property for sale?6. the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would appropriately and appositely and that too legally highlight the point, that simply because a property to be brought for sale is under the prior.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....citizen can be regarded as an enemy of the state merely because he has voiced a view which is not the one favoured by those in authority.para 17:the fact that the police are vested with power should not make them assume that, that power is available for exercise in any manner that they consider fit. that power is to be exercised strictly within the ambit of the provisions of the constitution, more particularly, the requirement that any restriction placed on the exercise of fundamental rights should be a reasonable restriction, and the restrictions so placed should be shown to be essential, having regard to the permissible purpose for which restrictions may be imposed.para 18:the fact that the petitioner-association is voicing a view point which may not be popular cannot be a justification for preventing that point of view being projected."this court is in entire agreement with the views expressed therein.9. the petitioner is inclined to conduct demonstration on 25.6.2012 in front of the taluk office, cheyyar. it is stated by the learned additional government pleader that no fresh representation was given. inasmuch as there was already a direction of this court to consider the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT