.....it is to be noted that pw.10 selvam did not state in his testimony that a1 murali gave information in his confession statement in his presence. in fact, he did not speak about the admissible portion of the confession statement and it was not marked through him. it came to be marked only through the investigation officer pw.18 inspector sarvesan. the prosecution has not examined the other mahazar witness thiagarajan to prove that a1 murali gave information in his confession statement. no reason is stated by the investigation officer as to the non-examination of thiagarajan. only in his testimony pw.18 inspector sarvesan has stated that a1 murali surrendered in the case before the vii metropolitan magistrate, saidapet and he took him on police custody and enquired him in the presence of pw.10 selvam and thiagarajan and a1 murali gave confession and ex.p29 is the admissible portion of it. pw.10 selvam was not treated as hostile though he did not state that a1 murali gave information in his confession statement in his presence and the prosecution had failed to examine the other mahazar witness thiagarajan. in such circumstances, the testimony of the investigation officer alone.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....a total lack of application of mind. further, the reasons stated in ext.p5, which has been issued in pursuance to ext.p2 show cause notice, are facts which were not put to the petitioner in the notice. the discrepancy noticed in the monthly return for the month march 2014 (annexure-a), is subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice and long after w.p.(c) no. 25771/2014 2 the matter was kept for hearing by the authority as is evident from ext.p5, is the argument.3. the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 however would contend that no writ would be maintainable at this juncture since ext.p5 is only a recommendation which has to be forwarded to the 1st respondent and only on approval by the central provident fund commissioner and the board of trustees would the government be addressed, on the question of cancellation of exemption. the writ petition is premature and the petitioner seeks pre-emption of a valid consideration by the authorities, goes the defence of the respondent.4. the inspection which led to the impugned order was on 21.11.2011 as is evidenced by ext.p1. on the basis of such inspection, ext.p2 show cause notice was issued. four defects.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the "zero landless programme". it is further stated that there is no law and order situation and the police shall interfere and take appropriate action in case of any law and order issue and will ensure prevention of untoward incidents. the 5th respondent has submitted a report reiterating the above stand and further stating that petitioner has no title in respect of the land in question.4. the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit controverting the above reports.5. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned state attorney.6. having regard to the nature of issues involved in the matter, there is dispute between the petitioner and the government regarding the title in respect of the property and steps have already been taken by the government to evict the encroachment in re-survey no.389/3. the petitioner had also w.p.(c) no.34686/2014 : - 5 -: filed a suit seeking declaration of title. the civil suit as well as the proceedings pending under the kerala land conservancy act has to reach its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed. as matters stand now, the only complaint raised by the petitioner is that when the petitioner is in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. it is noteworthy that the “intention to cause death” is not an essential requirement of clause (2). only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender’s knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. this aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to section 300”.15. in the aforesaid judgment, celebrated judgment of hon'ble supreme court rendered in the case of virsa singh v. state of punjab reported in air1958s.c. 465 has also been reiterated and ultimately it was held in paragraphs-24 and 25 as under :“24. clause (c) of section 299 and clause (4) of section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....a total lack of application of mind. further, the reasons stated in ext.p5, which has been issued in pursuance to ext.p2 show cause notice, are facts which were not put to the petitioner in the notice. the discrepancy noticed in the monthly return for the month march 2014 (annexure-a), is subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice and long after w.p.(c) no. 25771/2014 2 the matter was kept for hearing by the authority as is evident from ext.p5, is the argument.3. the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 however would contend that no writ would be maintainable at this juncture since ext.p5 is only a recommendation which has to be forwarded to the 1st respondent and only on approval by the central provident fund commissioner and the board of trustees would the government be addressed, on the question of cancellation of exemption. the writ petition is premature and the petitioner seeks pre-emption of a valid consideration by the authorities, goes the defence of the respondent.4. the inspection which led to the impugned order was on 21.11.2011 as is evidenced by ext.p1. on the basis of such inspection, ext.p2 show cause notice was issued. four defects.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....each. the paid-up share capital of the petitioner company is rs.17,20,39,000/-. the main object of the petitioner company is to do business of manufacturers and dealers in machinery of all kinds, particularly textile machinery and all or any of the business of mechanical, electrical, railway, marine, aeronautical, agricultural, sanitary, civil and construction engineers.3. one textool company limited (default company) is indebted to the petitioner a sum of rs.36,19,239.38, which includes interest at the rate of 6% per annum until the date of petition and further interest at the said rate till payment together with costs of rs.53,956/- under the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2000 passed by the ix additional district judge, jabalpur, madhya pradesh state, in civil suit no.242a of 1995. the said default company approached the petitioner to set up a mini steel plant in jabalpur and offered to install 5 tons capacity of steel furnaces at the petitioner's factory at jabalpur. according to the petitioner, on 18.6.1973, the said offer of the default company was accepted by the petitioner and the default company supplied parts of the furnace and also sent its representatives for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 2013, decided on 26th march, 2014, the following reasons were given by the revisional court:“this judgment is squarely application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. in view of this judgement, plea of petitioners cannot be accepted and specific reason is not required to be given if the court decides to try the offence under section 138 n.i. act as a summary trial at the stage of giving notice under section 251 cr.p.c. keeping in view the fact that notice was given to petitioner by the ld. trial court under section 251 cr.p.c. and evidence in the matter is being recorded in complete manner and not only substance of evidence, i affirm the finding of ld. trial court.” 3. both the above said orders dated 22nd may, 2012 and 23rd august, 2014 have been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. the matter was adjourned for settlement, if any. however, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioners are not ready to pay even the principal amount. therefore, both the parties have made their submissions.4. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that the present petition under section 482 cr.p.c. is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....her two daughters, one of whom, is physically challenged. no proof has been produced by the respondents to show that the application, dated 16.11.2007, was rejected by the letter, dated 17.07.2008 and the same had been communicated to the petitioner.11. in view of the above facts, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 16.11.2007 afresh, taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner that she is very poor and maintaining her two daughters, one of whom is physically challenged. this order will not be a precedent for other cases in which representations are made beyond six months as contemplated in the scheme. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. no costs. index : yes 30.01.2015 internet : yes smn2 to 1.the general manager (personnel), personnel administration department, indian overseas bank, central office, 763, anna salai, chennai - 2. 2.the branch manager, indian overseas bank, kamarajar road, kumbakonam, thanjavur district. v.m.velumani, j.smn2 w.p.(md)no.1171 of 2012 30.01.2015
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....a total lack of application of mind. further, the reasons stated in ext.p5, which has been issued in pursuance to ext.p2 show cause notice, are facts which were not put to the petitioner in the notice. the discrepancy noticed in the monthly return for the month march 2014 (annexure-a), is subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice and long after w.p.(c) no. 25771/2014 2 the matter was kept for hearing by the authority as is evident from ext.p5, is the argument.3. the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 however would contend that no writ would be maintainable at this juncture since ext.p5 is only a recommendation which has to be forwarded to the 1st respondent and only on approval by the central provident fund commissioner and the board of trustees would the government be addressed, on the question of cancellation of exemption. the writ petition is premature and the petitioner seeks pre-emption of a valid consideration by the authorities, goes the defence of the respondent.4. the inspection which led to the impugned order was on 21.11.2011 as is evidenced by ext.p1. on the basis of such inspection, ext.p2 show cause notice was issued. four defects.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....commissioner's report is only a piece of evidence. the grievance of the 1st respondent is that he is landlocked in spite of a temporary injunction order in his favour because the petitioner is violating the order. that is not a matter to be adjudicated in this proceedings. 1st respondent, if aggrieved, can initiate appropriate proceedings before the trial court.4. learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to ext.p12 application wherein the 1st respondent has requested for an order so that the commissioner shall conduct a local inspection and report about nine things enlisted in the application. out of the matters enlisted, item nos.1 to 3 and 5 are totally extraneous to the litigation is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other things now sought to be reported by the commissioner have already been covered by the earlier reports and plans. this submission is opposed by the 1st respondent. according to him, subsequent to the earlier inspection, the situation has been changed by the petitioner. it is made clear that the trial court is free to decide about the acceptability of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT