Reported in : 2009(3)WLN553
.....was 28 years old at the time of his death and thereafter it has adopted a multiplier of 15 whereas looking to the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier is 18. 6. considering the age of the deceased and all the facts and circumstances of the matter i am of the opinion that in this case the appropriate multiplier is 18 and not 15 as has been adopted by learned tribunal. the dependency thus comes to rs. 1600x12x18= rs. 3,45,600/-. if we add rs. 21,500/- as awarded by learned tribunal on various counts then the total amount comes to rs. 3,67,100/-. 7. the claimants appellants are, therefore, entitled to get the compensation to the tune of rs. 3,67,100/-.8. consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the amount of compensation is enhanced from rs. 3,09,500/- to rs. 3,67,100/-. the claimants appellants will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application in the tribunal to the date of deposit/realisation on the enhanced amount. learned tribunal will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit. no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009(3)WLN602
.....rs. 50,000/- of interim award from the compensation amount awarded to the claimants appellants is entirely illegal and unwarranted and it therefore deserves to be set aside.6. consequently, the appeal is allowed as above and the order of deducting rs. 50,000/- of no fault liability from rs. 81,000/- is set aside and a total award of rs. 81,000/- is passed in favour of the claimants appellants. the claimants appellant will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application in the tribunal to the date of deposit/realisation on the difference amount. learned tribunal will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit. no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)8MLJ1
.....acknowledgment is annexed herewith).2) whether your agency is bound to proceed on this complaint as the statements were in the nature of admitted fact supported with documents? kindly inform about the same.3) even if your agency do not possess the power to disqualify him from contesting election, could have the authority to recommend on this for further action? kindly inform me about this.4) in case, if your agency do not have the power to recommend, why you have not given suitable advise to me to take appropriate step/action at my end.5) inform me, whether my complaint is under consideration or kept aside.note : since the information i am seeking is in the nature of public interest, anti corruption & revenue loss to government, the information be furnished within 48 hours of my request. rs. 10/- court fee is affixed herewith.the superintendent of police and public information officer of the anti corruption wing of c.b.i. replied to the petitioner on the following lines:central bureau of investigationanti corruption wingshasthri bhavan, iii floor, chennai-600 006no.c6/rt1/019/2009/94 dt.27.02.2009tomr. v.k. palanivelu, b.a., b.l., former district general secretary, mallur.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....('bifr' for short) dated 25.11.2008 and issue the gazette notification accordingly.2.1. the petitioner-company is an operator of sponge iron manufacturing plant at bellary since 1993 and it proposed to setup an integrated steel plant in the state of karnataka. according to the petitioner, the first respondent-state promised the petitioner to grant a mining lease to procure its requirement: of seven lakhs tonnes of iron ore per annum for a period of 50 years and the petitioner also applied for a mining lease over an extent of 600 acres in the ramanadurg range in sandur taluk on 14.9.1993. but the said application dated 14.9.1993 was rejected by order dated 29.6.1994 on frivolous ground mentioning that the area applied for by the petitioner overlaps with the area of another similar applicant. being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.6.1994, petitioner filed revision petition, which was allowed by order dated 29.6.1994, and the order dated 29.6.1994 rejecting the application for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner was thus set aside in revision and matter was remitted to the state government to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTp.d. dinakaran, c.j.1.1. the petitioner, a company incorporated under the companies act engaged in business of carrying mining activity and manufacture of stainless steel, alloy steel and rolling products through blast furnace route, having manufacturing facilities in karnataka, maharashtra and goa and producing 0.8 million tonnes of steel with an annual turnover of rs. 300 crore providing employment for 3000 labourers, applied for grant of mining lease over an area of 36.42 hectares in tumti village, sandur taluk, bellary district for mining iron ore and yellow oxide vide application no. aml 471/06 dated 15.5.2006. the petitioner also intends to invest rs. 50 crore with the intention to start iron & steel industry in the state of karnataka which also generates direct employment for another 1000 labourers.1.2. considering the merits of the petitioner, in the light of the matters that are required to be considered under section 11(3) of the mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'mmdr act') and giving preferential right to the petitioner as per rule 35 of the mineral concession rules, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'mc.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for an injunction restraining the forest department from interfering with the mining activity and the usage of the road.6. taking note of the above fact, this court by an order dated 17.11.2008, called for the records in o.s. nos. 124/2007, 125/2007, 1/2008 and 6/2008 on the file of the learned civil judge (jr.dn.) and jmfc, to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decision on the same issue and the fifth respondent and the seventh respondent transferee were restrained from carrying on with quarrying operations in the impugned land, ie., sy. no. 95 of rajathadripura village, tiptur taluk, tumkur district.7. both the above writ petition and the above said original suits are heard together and perused the records.8. heard sri d. nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sri basavaraj kareddy, learned government advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and sri d.l.n. rao, learned senior counsel appearing for sri m. vinaya keerthy, learned counsel appearing for seventh respondent, at length.9.1 it is not in dispute that as per the proceedings dated 24.03.2008, the impugned land, to an extent of 71.20 acres of land in rajathadripura village, tiptur taluk, tumkur district,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....magistrate, nalanda at biharsharif whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 323, 504, 406, 420/34 i.p.c. as also section 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act.2. the aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by one suman kumar on 12.6.2005 inter alia alleging that he had negotiated the marriage of his sister neelam kumari with anand madhav @ dablu in the year 2004 and he had given rs. 2,05,001/- in two installments to nawalji towards expenses to be incurred at the marriage and for purchase of goods at the house of his sarhu ramakant sinha of village rupaspur p.s. harnaut. it is further alleged that when he went in march, 2004 to the house of nawalji along with three members of his family to fix the date of the marriage, then he was informed by nawalji, his father and four sons that the marriage with his sister was not possible since another party had agreed to pay rs. 5 lacs, and notwithstanding the pleadings of the informant they remained adamant whereupon the informant requested for return of his money. they requested for time of two months for returning the money, thereafter they again sought for five months time.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....all the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners happen to be their defence which cannot be looked into or considered in this proceeding under section 482 cr.p.c. the petitioners are, accordingly, given liberty to raise all these points at the stage of framing of charge which is the appropriate forum where these matters can be thrashed out and in the event these issues are raised before the court, it shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.6. due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, mentioned above, i find no merit in this application which is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise these issues before the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of any of the parties are being decided and in the said circumstances the order of the court below allowing substitution petition filed by the son of the executor was held to be justified.6. one may also refer to section 268 of the indian succession act which provides that in proceedings relating to granting of probate and letters of administration are to be governed by the code of civil procedure. it would thus follow that the provisions of the code of civil procedure can be invoked even in proceedings for grant of probate or letters of administration.7. keeping in mind the decisions of sailendra nath mazumdar (supra), it has to be held that the petitioners are definitely persons interested in the probate proceeding and can be permitted to intervene and appear in the proceeding and by proving the will obtain probate in their own right.8. in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....177 cr.p.c. provides for the place where an enquiry and trial should ordinarily take place and sub-section (b) of section 178 cr.p.c. provides that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, then it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of (sic) is not the position here in the instant case and applying the provisions of section 177 cr.p.c. to the factual scenario disclosed by the informant, the only conclusion that one can arrive at is that no part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts within the judgeship of darbhanga, the court at darbhanga had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or even take cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police after investigation.6. accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT