.....as 30.10.1980 and in the information furnished by maheshpur colliery the date of birth has been mentioned as 22 years in the year 1980, which fact supports the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10.10.1958. further, vide annexure-4, respondent no. 4 has also informed that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.10.1958 in the following documents:- (i) second form-b register; (ii) cmpf register; (iii) identity card; (iv) service record and (v) list of employees sent by govindpur colliery to the system department of bccl-respondent no.1. 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment rendered by the full bench of this court in the case of kamta pandey vs. m/s b.c.c.l. through its chairman-cum-managing director, koyla bhawan, koyla nagar, dhanbad & ors. reported in 2007 (3) j.l.j.r. 726 in paragraph-14, of which it has been held as under :- “the instruction no. 76 of national coal wage agreement-iii is applicable to the respondent-company as well as to the petitioner. in fact, there is no dispute over the applicability of provisions of instruction no. 76 of national coal wage agreement-iii in this case as the same has.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the judgment of this court in the case of anita devi vs. the state agriculture marketing board & others, reported in 2014 (1) jljr88 wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case where the first wife filed an affidavit expressing her consent for paying half of the amount of retiral benefits and other amount to the second wife, a division bench of this court held that as the first wife has given her consent for paying the half of the death-cum-retiral dues, there is no impediment for the first respondent of that case to pay half of the amount to the appellant of that case and submitted that the ratio of anita devi’s case (supra) is applicable to this writ petition.5. it is pertinent to mention here that the facts of this case are entirely different from anita devi’s case (supra). here the wife of late rampravesh singh – respondent no.5 of w.p.(s) no. 5147 of 2013 is not even admitting that the petitioner of w.p.(s) no. 5147 of 2013 is the second wife of rampravesh singh, let alone giving her consent for payment of rs. 2,70,000/- to her. she refuses to share even a farthing of the retiral dues payable on account of late rampravesh singh with the petitioner. so.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so as to rule out the presumption that no other person could have committed the offence. it has also been contended that learned trial court made a factual error in calculating five days from the date of post mortem conducted on 30th november, 2016 thereby assuming that the date of kidnapping which is 24th november, 2010 and the date of death coincides. further the place of occurrence is a farm house duly guarded by the chowkidars. pw-17, sh.heera lal, caretaker/chowkidar of the farm house has been examined. when the farm house was duly guarded by the chowkidar, it was not possible for the appellant to take the child along with him without being noticed by the chowkidar and this also creates doubt in the prosecution case.11. learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that if pinki was informed by pw-3 nemwati prior to registration of fir, that deceased was seen by her going with seeshpal, then why she did not name him in the fir, has remained unexplained by the prosecution. as per the complainant pw-2 pinki, the appellant was a bad character hence possibility of his false implication due to that reason cannot be ruled out. pw-3 nemwati stated that some persons were.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of grant of maintenance in her favour passed by the court of s.d.j.m., seraikella-kharsawan has been set aside. although, the maintenance amount ordered in favour of minor daughter laxmi murmu was found justified and the revision application was partly allowed and partly dismissed. aggrieved by the said order passed in revision, instant application has been filed by the petitioner no.1-maya murmu being wife of karu murmu and minor daughter laxmi murmu against the o.p. no.2 karu @ dasrath murmu husband/father of the petitioners herein.3. the case in short is that petitioner no.1 and o.p. no.2 had love affairs and thereafter they married according to the customs prevalent in their society. they also got their marriage registered before the sub-registrar, chaibasa who issued marriage certificate no.6197 dated 14.03.1997. further case is that out of 2 the said wedlock petitioner no.2 laxmi murmu was born. after the birth of the daughter, o.p.no.2 started ill treating the petitioner no.1 and neglected to provide basic necessities. finally they were driven out from matrimonial home and the o.p. no.2-husband contracted another marriage with parvati tudu and enjoying the matrimonial.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....suit to be continued because the firm is not registered, the suit has to be filed on that ground or whether the court will so allow or continue. factual aspect of the matter- that under section 69 of the partnership act, no suit can be interfered. right arises from the contract. that the right arises out the contract or partnership or any enforcement of right of the partner arises under partnership act, by a person who claims to be partner or who alleges to be a partner cannot be partner, unless, he has partner in the firm and his name is shown under the registration of the firm. section 69 defines that any person who wants to be a partner or who alleges to have been a partner or claiming any right under the partnership act can file suit unless the firm is registered and the name of the plaintiff appeared in partnership deed/firm. -2- section 69 says that if you are basing your right on a contract and suing on a contract then, the firm should have been registered. plaintiff alone became the partner of the firm. the plaintiff is suing as a partner in the firm. learned judge while disposing of claim of plaintiff under order 7 rule 11 has held that the plaintiff.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....names of the assailants. it is not conceivable that the injured eye witness and his wife who was present at the time of occurrence would give a manufactured or cooked up names of the assailants just immediately after the occurrence. similar is the deposition of pw-4 who also reached at the place of occurrence on alarm and he saw the injuries inflicted on victim basudeo mahto.16. p.w. 5 is dr. shashi bhushan singh who proved the injury report which is ext.1 and which was in the hand writing of dr. kamta prasad agarwal. being a colleague of dr. kamta prasad agarwal it is not inconceivable that pw-5, shashi bhushan singh would be unable to recognize the hand writing of dr. kamta prasad agarwal. the injuries (ext.1) which were listed are as follows: (1) 7 incised wounds all around the left eye and on the nose of different size and shape 1” to 2” in length and ½”-x 1” in breadth and 1/2” to bone deep in depth. (2) swelling on the lower eye lid on right side. (3) lacerated wound on the right arm 1/2” x 1/4” x 1/4”. injury no.1 was grievous in nature, injury no.2 and 3 were simple in nature. injury no. 1 was due to sharp cut weapon. hence, injuries report supports the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....learned special judge, vigilance, ranchi as also to quash the entire criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner vide the said case.3. the facts giving rise to this application are that certain lands measuring 1.8 acres pertaining to khata no. 268, plot no. 2983 situated at mouza-argora, was recorded in record of right as gairmajurwa malik. however, in the year 1970-71 two rent receipts were issued against that land in the name of samu sao. after his death, his son- chandan sao inherited the property and got his name mutated against the aforesaid land in the year 1982- 83.4. in course of time, chandan sao sold 0.49 acres and .59 acres of land separately to mahavir kashi, the then secretary of jai bhawani cooperative society in the year 1988-91 who got his 2 name mutated against the vended land. mahavir kashi sold the land to ten persons. thereupon this petitioner who at the relevant point of time was posted as the sub-divisional officer, sadar, ranchi was himself empowered and capable of cancelling the zamabandi at the very early stage but he immediately did not cancel the zamabandi on the ground that he has no such power and cancelled the zamabandi only after the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the said period was regularized. as the authority who regularized and sanctioned the period of absence was incompetent to do so in view of that fact, the order of regularization was without jurisdiction and as such justifying the impugned order, the learned counsel argues that there is no illegality in shifting the date of joining.5. be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. no reasons have been assigned for shifting the date of joining from 16.10.2007 to 20.11.2007. it has been held in catena of decisions that reasons cannot be supplemented in the counter-affidavit, reasons have to be assigned in the impugned order. in case of commissioner of police vs. gordhandas bhanji, air1952sc16 it has been held that reasons cannot be assigned in the counter- affidavit. the same view has been reiterated in the case of mahendrasingh gill vs. state of punjab air1978scc851 even from the counter-affidavit it is not clear that when the petitioner was relieved. not a chit of paper neither any document has been brought on record showing the date of relieving of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was sufficiently lighted, it was wholly unacceptable that pw1 could see the incident from his house at a distance of 15 cubits. in the attendant facts and circumstances, mr. venugopal maintained that the conviction of the appellant on the testimony of a solitary witness, whose version was laden with inconsistencies, absurdities, and improbabilities, is patently illegal and cannot, in any view of the matter, be sustained in law. he discarded the evidence of pw5, pw6 and pw8, relied upon by the two courts below, on the ground that their testimonies were wholly inconsequential being in the nature of “hearsay”, they having derived the knowledge of the incident from pw1, as reported to them by him. mr. 8 venugopal has urged that if the version of pw1 is disbelieved, as it ought to be, in view of the inherent incongruities, the other materials on record do not unerringly evince the complicity of the accused persons in the offence and thus, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. he argued as well that the injuries enumerated in the inquest report and the medical evidence/post-mortem report, also are inconsistent and contradictory in description, thus rendering the prosecution.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of. new delhi; november 17, 2017. .......................j.[ kurian joseph ]. .......................j.[ r. banumathi ]. 4 item no.7 court no.5 section iv-a s u p r e m e c o u r t o f i n d i a record of proceedings petition(s) for special leave to appeal (c) no(s). 6548-6549/2017 (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-06-2016 in co no.3/2014 14-06-2016 in co no.4/2014 passed by the high court of m.p at indore) state of madhya pradesh petitioner(s) versus official liquidator m/s hukumchand mills ltd. (in liquidation) & ors. (for for exemption from filing o.t. on ia72017 and ia no.63075/2017-permission to file additional documents and ia no.63088/2017-permission to file additional documents for application for transposition on ia514762017) date :17. 11-2017 these matters were called on for hearing today. coram : hon'ble mr. justice kurian joseph hon'ble mrs. justice r. banumathi counsel for the parties respondent(s) ia application52017 on stay mr. dhruv mehta, sr. adv. mr. amish tandon, adv. mr. sameer abhyankar, adv. mr. purushaindra kaurav, adv. gen. mr. arjun garg, adv. ms. swarupama chaturvedi, adv. mr. manish yadav, adv. mr. rohit chandra, adv. mr......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT