.....and cross objection coming on for final hearing this day, the court delivered the following:3. judgment mfa no.31457/2012 is filed by the employer-factory under section 30(1) of the workmen's compensation act, challenging the judgment dated 07.06.2012 passed in kar/wc/cr-61/2010 by the commissioner for workmen's compensation, raichur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the commissioner), so far as fastening liability of rs.1,20,973/- with interest at 12% p.a. after one month from the date of accident till realisation.2. mfa crob no.1524/2013 is filed by the insurance company challenging the very same judgment so far as liability fastened on it and also the quantum of compensation.3. brief facts of the case are that, the deceased- workman was working under the employment of the appellant in mfa no.31457/2012 - factory as a labourer by performing the work as coal crusher machine operator with wages of rs.4,000/- per month and the appellant-factory had entered into a contract of insurance with the cross objector - national insurance co. ltd. as insurance policy naming it as workmen's compensation (general). when this being the fact, when the deceased was working in the said factory as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....court.5. the trial court and sessions judge’s court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this court.6. in view of the fact that in spite of granting sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not appear and proceeded further in this matter, this court, by its detailed order dated 20-08-2020, appointed an amicus curiae for the revision petitioner.7. heard the arguments from both side. crl.r.p.no.567/2011 6 8. learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner in her arguments disputed the alleged marital relationship between the complainant and the accused. according to her, there was no marriage that was solemnized between the complainant and the accused, as such, in the absence of any marital relationship between the parties, section 498a of the ipc would not be attracted. she further contended that the alleged marriage certificate at ex.p-2 is also not a valid marriage certificate in the eye of law for the reason that, the alleged marriage has not been registered under the karnataka marriages (registration and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “kmrm act”). on the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the ground they have purchased the properties from the monies generated through proceeds of crime. he would submit there is no dispute to the fact that all these monies having been transferred on-line and properties were purchased in mangalore even prior to the offence alleged i.e., schedule offence. he would draw the attention of the court to the expression “has reason to believe” would acquire significance for initiating proceedings and such reasons are 57 not forthcoming under the impugned orders. he would submit that section 22 of pml act draws a presumption that when the properties standing in the name of a particular person, it shall be presumed that property belongs to that person. in the light of said presumption, it is not open for the respondents to say that consideration paid by the petitioners for purchase of the property is to be construed as proceeds of crime. he would further contend that to record “reasons to believe” there should be basis and if not, it would be without jurisdiction. 11.1) he would also contend that offence has occurred in india and money is transferred from dubai and there is no compliance of section 2(1)(ra) of pml act. when.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT