Latest Cases

Sri Parmeshwar Paswan Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

.....the service to be pensionable even if the service is not under government or the employment is not against substantive and permanent post.7. the fact that petitioner was appointed as chowkidar w.e.f. 9.7.1955 regularized as a government servant w.e.f. 1.1.1990 and superannuated w.e.f. 31.5.1999 without completing ten years of pensionable service is not in dispute. prayer, however, has been made in this application to include even part of the earlier service rendered by the petitioner for calculating the minimum ten years of qualifying service for earning pension under the bihar pension rules as the petitioner throughout his career served the village police with all sincerity at his command and was paid from the state exchequer right from 1.1.1977 in the light of report of the i.n. thakur committee constituted by the state government for providing better service condition to the chowkidars.8. it is thus evident that the state government in terms of rule 59 of the bihar pension rules has the necessary discretion to take into account the service rendered by the petitioner in between 1.1.1977 to 1.1.1990 for the purposes of calculating qualifying service so as to enable him to.....

Amrita Prava Hajong Vs. State of Meghalaya and anr.

Court : Guwahati

.....learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. n.d. chullai, learned senior government counsel appearing for the official respondents.3. the facts as projected in this writ petition are not disputed. the husband of the petitioner, late g ch. hajong was the member of the meghalaya police service. he was working as sub-inspector of police and was posted at nongpoh in the year 2006. on 17.10.2006 the deceased was placed under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding. in course of time the disciplinary proceeding being no. 3/2006 was drawn up against the deceased. however, during the continuation of the proceeding and before completion of the same the incumbent expired on 21.11.2006. the disciplinary authority thereafter dropped the said departmental proceeding vide order dated 10.1.2007. in the said order it is also stated that the incumbent would not be entitled to family pension as at the time of his demise he was absent from duty and criminal cases taken up by him were still pending investigation. however, other monetary benefits due to him will be paid to his wife.4. it is submitted by mr. chullai, learned senior government counsel that except the family.....

Khroksila Nongkhlaw Rngi Umsning Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.

Court : Guwahati

.....for the state respondents and mr. n.c. das, sr. advocate for the respondent no. 5, syiem of mylliem, mawkhar, shillong.3. the abbreviated pleaded facts projecting the rival stands need be set out at the threshold. the petitioner claiming herself to be a member of the scheduled tribe (hills) and belonging to nongkhlaw rngi family of late u. beh nongkhlaw and late ka tyngshain nongkhlaw rngi contends to be the owner of 676 acres of land. according to her, this land is her ancestral property and is ri kynti (special) lands open to succession and inheritance and by virtue of the custom and law prevailing in her society, she has eventually become the owner thereof. she has maintained that in terms of the custom prevalent in her society, her family used to be administered by the male members thereof and at the relevant point of time, her ancestor late u. beh nongkhlaw rngi entered into an agreement with the british government and by the indenture that was signed by him on 8.12.1863 a portion of the family land was leased out to the said government on payment of an annual rent of rs. 50/- for construction of civil and military sanitaria, posts and cantonment etc. it was stipulated.....

Sudhkar Pandey and Markandey Vs. Ajit Choudhary

Court : Patna

.....names of some voters have been given in paragraph 15 of the election petition.4. the further case of the petitioners is that when the above fact of misprinting was known to him on 18.10.2005, petitioner no. 1 without any loss of time on the same day sent an application through fax to district election officer, buxar as well as chief election officer bihar, patna and also chief election commissioner of india. under the aforesaid ground, according to the petitioners, the election of respondent is void and illegal and fit to be set aside.5. written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. apart from other grounds, respondent has raised the point of maintainability of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provision of sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 of the representation of people act, 1951. it has been averred that since the allegations are vague and frivolous, it is hit by mandatory clause of sections 83 & 87 of the act read with order vi, rule 16 and order vii, rule 11 of the c.p.c. however, the main defence of respondent is that the petitioner no. 1 was never allotted the symbol of baniyan tree nor there was any misprinting of.....

Ajahar Ali Vs. State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

.....occurrence cast a doubt on the veracity of the allegation made against the accused appellant. the explanation offered by the complainant is not satisfactory in as much as it has been stated that negotiation was initiated to settle the matter at the village level. there is no indication as to what sort of settlement was sought to be made in regard to the aforesaid alleged serious offence. it was required that the matter should have been reported to the police immediately after the incident looking at the seriousness of the offence but that was not done by the husband of the prosecutrix rather they waited for some settlement.14. there are catena of judgments rendered by the apex court that the accused may be convicted of the offence of commission of rape on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix provided the same is supported by medical evidence. as discussed above, we have already found that the evidence of the prosecutrix has not been found categorical, cogent and reliable besides being supported by the medical evidence. there is a scope for taking other view, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the prosecutrix consented in the sexual act with the accused appellant and it.....

Dhruba Nath and ors. Vs. State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

.....witness in his evidence deposed that on 2.9.1995 while he was in duty in nurbari t.e. he heard an alarm 'thief', 'thief. when he came out from the factory he was told by sahadeb (pw 5) that there was thief arrived in the area and he went in the same bicycle with sahadeb and that time he saw that 3 persons were running towards the garden. when he and sahadeb reached near them they found the 3 (three) persons entered into the sugar cane field which was situated near the no. 5 line of nurbari t.e. it was narrated by him that amar sahu and tarani karmakar were following them and he, sahadeb, amar and tarani entered into the sugar cane field and found a person with a dagger inside the sugar - can field and when the person attempted to assault him with the dagger he gave a blow with a lathi on him and thereafter snatched away the dagger from him and gave the same to amar sahu. it was also stated by him that persons caught by him told his name was dhruba nath. he also stated that at that time police arrived there and he and amar gave the dagger to police and ext. 3(4) was his signature in the seizure list and material ext. 2 was the dagger which was snatched away by him on the day of.....

Nagnath S/O Venkatrao Hande and Shankarrao S/O Venkatrao Vs. Ramrao S/ ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR728; 2008(5)MhLj417

.....after her death in about 1936 the property had devolved on bhagubai and bhagubai took the property not as a limited estate but absolutely. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no question of narsing inheriting the property of his father-in-law bypassing the widow or the daughter. the appellants do not inherit property directly from baliram to the exclusion of respondent no. 1. so far as daughter's son is concerned, it is discussed in article 43 (6)(i) and it lays down that the daughter's son is not entitled to succeed, if there be any daughter living and capable of inheritence. so there is no question of appellants or respondent no. 1 for that matter inheriting property during life time of bhagubai. since bhagubai died in 1970 the property would devolve on all her sons whether born out of first marriage or second marriage. 12. the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs is for declaration of the exclusive possession and ownership over the suit property and also alternatively for putting them into possession. so no such relief can be granted to the appellants/plaintiffs. so far as sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 is concerned, the.....

Dnyanu Dadu Patil Vs. Shripati Dadu Patil Deceased by Heirs Smt. Sakhu ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR796; 2008(5)BomCR427; 2008(4)MhLj931

.....second suit for partition is maintainable for the property left out in the earlier suit for partition for want of knowledge? - yes.3. the relevant facts are as under:(1) the respondents are heirs of original plaintiff and the appellant is original defendant no. 1.(2) original plaintiff filed a regular civil suit no. 408 of 1964 for partition and possession of the joint family property. the said suit was decreed.(3) the respondent filed present suit no. 351 of 1976 in the court of the civil judge junior division kolhapur for partition and possession of only one suit land being r.s. no. 368/5-a admeasuring 0-22 gunthas i.e. the left out property from the earlier suit.(4) the ground for filing second suit was that it was a joint family property and the original plaintiff had no knowledge of the same.(5) the trial court accepted and held that filing of fresh suit does not amount to reopening of the old partition; the second suit is not barred by order ii, rule 2 of the civil procedure code; the principle of res judicata does not apply. on 29-3-1985 the trial court granted decree for l/4th share as prayed for.(6) the appellant filed regular civil appeal no. 187 of 1985. on 29-9-1989.....

R.S. Korvi Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR894; [2008(119)FLR60]; 2008(5)MhLj75

.....of the court and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.2. the relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent no. 1 company in september, 1966 at their loni-kalbhor factory. at the material time, the petitioner was working in the ecom loudspeakers dept. and was also executive committee member of the philips employees union. on 11-6-1983 the petitioner was suspended on the ground that she had assaulted shri a.d. surve, a senior personnel officer within the factory premises. on 14-6-1983 the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground that the petitioner had committed misconduct covered under standing order 24(k) and 24(l) of the companies certified standing orders, hi her reply, the petitioner refuted the charges and contended that on 11-6-1983 shri a.d. surve had misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty and that she had filed a police complaint against shri a.d. surve on 11-6-1983 itself.3. the enquiry officer appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner fixed the first date of enquiry on 7-8-1983. on that day, the petitioner was present.....

Jaywant Sukhadeo Gadekar Vs. Prakash Panjabrao Raut and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(5)MhLj179

.....it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.6. learned single judge of this court in indraprastha holdings ltd.'s case (supra) after referring to the judgment of this court in ksl industries ltd. v. khandelwal and ors. 2006 (1) mh.l.j. (cri) 86 : 2005 (2) all mr (cri) 1105 has observed in para 7 of the judgment, as follows:closer scrutiny of section 145 shows that the same is intended to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. the said provision does not in any manner affect the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. the said provision enables even the defence evidence to be led by affidavits. thus, the said provision is purely procedural in nature. in this behalf, decision of the apex court reported in : [1998]2scr709 , shreenath and anr. v. rajesh and ors. is relevant. what has been held by the apex court is that in interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretations is possible, the one which curtails the procedural without eluding the justice is to be adopted. the procedural.....