1. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlearned a.p.p. appearing for the state.the petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under section379 of indian penal code.2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that sincethe petitioner was found in possession of stolen motorcar at patnarailway station, a case was registered under section 414 indianpenal code, in which petitioner has already been granted bail bypatna high court, but the petitioner has moved for bail before thiscourt as he has been made an accused in a case registered undersection 379 of the indian penal code for theft of the said car, butthere has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner hadhad any role to play in the commission of offence of theft.regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail onfurnishing bail bond of rs. 10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, koderma, in connection with jai nagar p.s. case no. 74 of 2010 corresponding to g.r. no. 486 of 2010.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 2001, the appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal.2. the brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant is surat municipal corporation duly constituted under the provisions of the bombay provincial municipal corporations act, 1949. as per resolution no.46 dated 11.5.1992, the respondent was appointed as a trainee and was serving as primary health worker (male) from 23.3.1994. it was specifically mentioned in the said resolution that the training period of the respondent would be of one year and within one year if the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory, then the same may be extended for further six months and thereafter during the extended period also if the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory, the appellant corporation can terminate the services of the respondent without issuing any notice. the service of the respondent was terminated on 8.11.1995 as the respondent has remained absent unauthorisedly. the respondent had filed reference (lcs) no.783 of 1997 before the presiding officer, labour court, surat seeking the relief to reinstate him to his original.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by him. he was, therefore, asked to appear before respondent 4 on 16-11- 2001 and to produce all relevant books of accounts, etc. and explain the facts revealed by the seized documents. in reply to the notice dated 8-11- 2001, the appellant sent the letter dated 3-11-2001 requesting the respondents to release the seized documents so as to enable him to prepare final accounts and also for running his day to day business or, in the alternative, to furnish him the xerox copies thereof. another letter dated 5-12-2001 was sent by him to respondent 4 requesting him to adjourn the case to another on the ground of his absence followed by another letter dated 12-12-2001 for releasing the seized documents but without any tangible result. this prompted him to file the writ petition for appropriate directions. 4.the contentions of the appellant are that the seizure was not based on requisite satisfaction of the seizing authority as required by the sales tax act; that if a dealer is found be engaged in business beyond those enumerated in the registration certificate, there are ample provisions in the act for amendment of the registration certificate; that the second ground in support of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT1. this is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case fir no. 36 dated 01.04.2011, under sections 498- a/406/494/506/120-b of the indian penal code, registered at police station guru harsahai, district ferozepur. petitioner is an employee of the district court. the allegations against the petitioner-husband are serious in nature. wife was pressurized to leave her matrimonial house because of cruel behaviour and harassment for demand of dowry i.e. car. record reveals that before the crl.misc. no.m-14765 of 2011 2 learned addl. sessions judge, ferozepur, investigating officer had suffered a statement that istridhan is to be recovered from the husband-petitioner. investigation is at the crucial stage. petitioner may tamper with the evidence and may influence the investigation being district courts employee. no good ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail.2. dismissed. however, if petitioner appears / surrenders before the illaqa magistrate within 10 days from today and seek regular bail, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, at its own merit without any undue delay.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....cannot succeed because of any default of the respondents. in the present case, as has been noticed, petitioners have not able to bring on record a single document showing their appointment, showing take over of the school by the government rather by bringing on record the deed of gift. it is clear that the school had, if at all a nomadic existence, of no significance prior to intervention of the district board after land was donated. in such a situation, relying on certain dubious communications of erring official then cannot perfect their case for grant of any relief.6.in such view of the matter, apart from others the facts being in serious controversy this court is inapt to grant any relief in the matter.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in the name of prafulla chandra mishra in pursuance of the order dated 15th december,1971 passed in misc.case no.17/1971-72. in view of the above facts, the title of the abovementioned land vested in the petitioner's ancestor and then the petitioner succeeded and got the property. it is also the admitted case of the petitioner that a title suit no.6 of 1975 was filed by the indian medical association, giridih branch which was though decreed against the petitioner and others but in appeal, a compromise was submitted by the parties and in view of the compromise, a compromise decree was passed. the said compromise is admittedly only part of the land in question, which was given to the indian medical association( to whom the land was already alloted by the state of bihar).3. it will be relevant to mention here that as per the facts noticed by the additional collector, giridih in the order dated 12th september, 1990 in title suit filed by the indian medical association, the petitioner's ancestors did not choose to file the written statement and also did not file the alleged hukumnama on the basis of which they claimed the title. it is also not made clear if the ancestors of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....3 were the first information report named witnesses, whereas p.w. 4 and 5 are the two injured witnesses, p.w. 1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses on the factum of occurrence. 4.the defence also proved certain documents on the point that in fact on the same date the appellant no. 1 and 2 had been variously assaulted by the prosecution party and the land in fact belong to the accused persons on the basis of a deed of gift. 5.on going through the evidence of the prosecution, i find that there is complete denial of the counter version and the fact that the appellants had also sustained injuries in the same transaction. this point alone is enough to discard the prosecution since evidently it has not given a truthful version of the occurrence as it happened. 6.in the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned ist additional sessions judge, west champaran, bettiah in sessions trial no. 123 of 1986/ 259 of 1995 by the judgment dated 10.7.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. however, if the fine has.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....made in the plaint and stated that he has no objection if the suit for partition is allowed. defendant nos. 2 to 5 were proceeded ex parte on vide order dated 21st april, 2010. 6. plaintiff no. 1 om prakash, plaintiff no. 2 kuldeep singh, plaintiff no.3 braham prakash, plaintiff no. 4 surinder singh, plaintiff no. 5 lalit kumar, plaintiff no. 6 deepti, plaintiff no. 7 rekha, plaintiff no. 8 chandrakala, plaintiff no. 9 satyawati and plaintiff no. 10 lajwanti have filed affidavits, stating on oath the averments made in the plaint. all of them have stated that the suit land admeasuring 17 biswa, comprised in khasra no. 798/508 min, situated in abadi deh, municipal no. 153-a, shahpur jat, new delhi was purchased by late shri risal singh, late shri chhatar singh and late shri nayaddar singh with equal shares and in an oral family settlement in the year 1960, late shri chhatar singh had agreed to take property no. 348, shahpur jat, new delhi which was owned by late shri risal singh and give his share in the suit land to shri risal singh. they have also stated that that the aforesaid family settlement was acted upon and possession of the share of late shri chhatar singh in the suit.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and ramcharan vs. state of m.p. (2004) 13 scc 617.17. however, we are of the opinion that that is not an absolute rule, and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. in considering whether to cancel the bail the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. if there are very serious allegations against the accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. moreover, the above principle applies when the same court which granted bail is approached for canceling the bail. it will not apply when the order granting bail is appealed against before an appellate/revisional court.18. in our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of the bail. that factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. there are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.19. this is a very serious case and cannot be treated like an ordinary case. the accused who are policemen are supposed to uphold the law, but.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....when others came to intervene they were also assaulted.4.the case of the defence was that the informant and the appellant no.1 were brothers and in fact the mother of the appellant no.1 had filed a case against her husband and the informant for having forcibly taken a signature on sale deed and when she protested she was assaulted for which first information report was filed which is exhibit-a and also the judgment on the same was delivered vide exhibit-c.5.during trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of whom p.w. 1 is the informant's brother whereas p.w. 2 is the informant, p.w. 3 is the informant's father, p.w. 4 is the doctor who examined the injured, p.w. has declared hostile, p.w.6 is formal and p.w. 7 is the investigating officer.6.on going through the evidence of p.w. 4, i find that apart from one injury on the person of lalan singh the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. the grievous injury is attributed to appellant no.1, similarly on the person of ram kishun singh only one grievous injury was found whereas the rest were simple, on the person of vijay singh one simple injury was found. 7.even considering the prosecution case in its entirety, it would be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT