Reported in : 2008CriLJ315
.....of the trial court as also the appellate court, submits that both the courts have committed gross error and miscarriage of justice on account of the fact that neither court has appreciated the evidences on record in proper perspective. learned counsel submits that the courts below have failed to consider that there is no corroborative evidence in respect of the testimony of the prosecutrix and, therefore, case of the prosecution having rested entirely on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, placing implicit reliance on her testimony was against the principles of appreciation of evidence. learned counsel explains further that that the learned court below ought to have considered that admittedly, there was previous enmity between the husband of the prosecutrix and the present petitioner on account of the land dispute and this was the possible reason for false implication of the petitioner. learned counsel adds further that the learned trial court has erred in failing to extend the benefit of the provisions of section 360 cr. p.c. and has also failed to observe the mandatory provisions of section 361 cr. p.c. which stipulates that the trial court should record special reason for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2008Jhar54; [2008(1)JCR317(Jhr)]
.....trial court. he submitted that findings on issue nos. 5 and 6 are unsustainable and unsound as the same are not based on proper consideration of the facts and evidences. learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had raised his bills on the basis of the terms of his appointment (ext. a/2) read with the rate fixed by the government of bihar, ext. 5/c. there was absolutely no vagueness in the plaint and that all the statements were clear and the same were effectively replied by the defendants in the written statement. in view of the nature of the controversy, the court ought not to have entered into any calculation and the statements of bills. the bills were not disputed. only the rate was disputed. it is an admitted fact that the bills were passed at the minimum slab of rate and rs. 52.605.35 were paid to the plaintiff. there was no denial so far as the rendering of professional service by the original plaintiff was concerned. there was only controversy regarding the slab of fee and the rate on which it was payable. learned counsel submitted that there was no ambiguity in view of ext. 5/c that the professional fee of the original plaintiff was payable at the maximum rate. in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : I(2008)DMC246
.....the impugned order of the learned court below primarily on the ground that the learned court below has seriously erred in failing to consider the fact that the opposite party no. 1 has wilfully withdrawn herself from the company and society of her husband, namely the present petitioner without there being any sufficient cause offered by her learned counsel explains that from the evidence adduced on record, it would transpire that after the gauna ceremony, opposite party no. 1 was brought by the petitioner to his house to lead normal conjugal life. where after, she herself left her matrimonial house and returned to the house of her parents. the petitioner had tried his level best expending all sincere efforts to bring back his wife to his house, but the lady had persistently refused to restore conjugal relations with him. learned counsel adds further that the learned court below has further erred in failing to consider that the opposite party no. 1 has though claimed that the petitioner is a man of means owing substantial properties, but no reliable and cogent evidence in support of such contention has been adduced by her. in fact, learned court below has itself acknowledged.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 103(2007)CLT703; [2007(114)FLR1030]
.....if the delay is unreasonable.2. even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the state in this case, on a detailed discussion relating to the facts and merits of the case, learned tribunal disposed of the o.a. vide order under annexure-8 with the following directions:8. xxx xxx xxx accordingly, i direct that on the adverse entries being expunged, case of applicant at different stages may be taken into consideration afresh if they have not been so considered, while giving him promotion by implementation of the order at different stages. cause of action for fresh consideration arises after the adverse entries were expunged. if at the time of superannuating the adverse entries as existing were not considered and case of applicant was considered as if he had no adverse entries no further action is necessary though the communication of expunging adverse entries was delayed. either the case of the applicant shall be considered afresh or in case has been properly considered without taking into consideration the adverse entries for giving him promotion the facts shall be communicated to the applicant within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. if the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 104(2007)CLT285; [2007(114)FLR693]; 2007(1)OLR787
.....party no. 1 to take a fresh decision in the matter upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the opp. party no. 7 keeping the observations made above in view. such decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition before him by the petitioner.7. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.8. it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition before the opp. party no. 1 for compliance of the above direction.9. urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)148PLR23
.....petitioner.6. amar nath pardesi filed an appeal against the said judgment dated 14.1.1983. the learned appellate authority reversed the finding of fact recorded by the learned rent controller, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed against the respondents vide judgment dated 20.2.1984.7. hence, the present petition.8. submissions have been considered.9. the petitioner had pleaded that he was the owner and landlord of the demised property and amar nath pardesi, respondent was a tenant under him. this fact has been admitted by the respondent-tenant in his statement which he had made on 1.1.1978 in the civil suit titled as sardari lal versus amin chand. a copy of his statement has been proved on the file by the petitioner as exhibit a-1. in t his statement, the respondent-tenant has deposed that gian chand and amin chand were tenants of mahant sarowar nath and those premises adjoined the premises in his possession. in cross-examination, he admitted that he (amar nath pardesi) was also a tenant under mahant sarowar nath. he had not written any lease deed/rent deed nor he had received any receipt in token of having paid the rent. two things were made clear.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)147PLR72; [2008]81SCL297(Punj& Har)
.....of section 106 of the transfer of property act, prior to initiation of liquidation proceedings. the judgment of the learned company judge, being factually incorrect, the conclusions drawn therein are, therefore, erroneous.9. it is further contended that the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in official liquidators, u.p. union bank ltd's case (supra), does not oust the appellants' claim. the hon'ble supreme court observed on the facts of the said case that as the contract was not rescinded, payments due thereunder would partake the nature of ordinary debts. in the said case, it was specifically held that distinction was to be drawn between property, which remains in possession of the official liquidator, after winding up for the purpose of liquidation and where property has not been used for the purpose of liquidation. a claim in the former situation would be in the nature of liquidation expenses, whereas a claim as regards latter, would not be so. thus, where the property is utilized for the purpose of bringing liquidation proceedings to a successful conclusion, such expenses would partake the nature of liquidation expenses to be assigned priority in matters of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007P& H136; (2007)147PLR594
.....the office of the appellant's advocate and misbehaved with him, (j) the respondent had concealed her actual date of birth before marriage. the fact that she was two years elder to the appellant, led to mental agony, and (k) the respondent refused to cohabit with the appellant and declined to have sexual relations with him.4. as far as the plea of desertion, it was sought to be substantiated by pleading that the respondent was posted as assistant director college education, haryana and lived with the appellant only for a few days at a time i.e. a few days after the marriage, 4 to 5 days during may 1997 and june 1997 and for a similar period at neemach (madhya pradesh). the respondent has been living separately since 1997 without just cause,5. the aforementioned facts are, in sum and substance, the grounds upon which the appellant prayed for the grant of a decree of divorce.6. in her reply to the aforementioned allegations, the respondent denied the correctness of the aforementioned allegations and pleaded that even as per the appellant's pleadings, they had resided together for a few days and, therefore, it was near impossible to expect the respondent to have misbehaved with.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)147PLR205
.....not give any title. the adverse possession should be open and claimed to the knowledge of the other co-sharers. there is no evidence of any such fact in this case. the plea of adverse possession has, therefore, been rightly disallowed.7. once the plea of adverse possession, raised by the defendants, has been negated in the earlier suit, the courts below could not permit the defendants to raise the plea of adverse possession and to hold that the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. in the previous judgment and decree, the finding recorded is that sunder singh and daya singh are in possession of the property as co-sharers. the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all the co-sharers. in the case of co-sharers, mere length of possession of one co-sharer would not give any title to the co-sharer in possession. it was found that there is no evidence of the fact that the possession is adverse to the knowledge of other co-sharers. once such is the finding, the present suit for possession based on title is governed by article 65 of the limitation act, 1963. as per the said article, it is for the defendants to prove that their possession became.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)147PLR207
.....the driver thereof.5. in view of the above principles of law, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant as the vehicle was insured in terms of insurance policy exhibit r.1. since the driver has admitted that he was not holding a valid driving licence, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver as the case may be. thus, the award of the learned tribunal stands modified to the above extent. however, if the appellants have paid the entire amount of compensation, the same shall be a due satisfaction of the award and the above modification in the award will not be applicable.6. the present appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT