Jamiyat Khan Pathan and 7 Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
indian penal code (ipc) - section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- learned counsel for the appellant sahnawaz contends that none of the appellants was arrested on the spot. none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the appellant. appellant has not been identified at any point of time. pw5, pw6 and pw10 have deposed about the incident. pw3 and pw4 have specifically identified the accused persons in the court. this witness has further identified appellant ashraf and shahnawaz in the court correctly. in regard to the identity of the accused persons pw3 and pw4 have identified the appellants herein as the persons who had entered the shop on 8th july 1999. appellants were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under section 397 ipc. gujarat high court case information system body {scrollbar-face-color: #d4d0c8; scrollbar-highlight-color: #808080; scrollbar-shadow-color: #d4d0c8; scrollbar-arrow-color: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} span.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadsearchhighlight() { var chkparamc = "txtsearch" if (chkparamc == "txtsearch") { searchhighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } print ca/8162/2011 2/2 orderinthe high court of gujarat at ahmedabadcivilapplication - for orders no. 8162 of 2011infirstappeal no. 3613 of 2000=================================================jamiyatkhan pathan & 7 - petitioner(s)versusnationalinsurance co. ltd. - respondent(s)=================================================appearance:mr tv shah for petitioner(s) :1 - 8.mr dakshesh mehta for respondent(s) :1,=================================================coram : honourable mr.justice g.b.shahdate: 03/10/2011 oralorder 1. heardthe learned advocate mr t v shah for the applicant/originalrespondent and learned advocate mr dakshesh mehta for theappellant/original opponents. 2. thepresent civil application has been filed by the original claimantsseeking the following relief in para 3 (a) and (b) which reads asunder:"3(a)the amount of fixed deposit approximately of rs.1.6 lakhs kept instate bank of india may be ordered to pay to applicant on furnishingthe personal bond or in alternative,(b)fa 3613/2000 may be ordered to place for final hearing at theearliest date as per the convenience of this hon'ble court."itappears that so far as the period of expiry of the period of 10 yearsis concerned, care which was required to be taken, has alreadybeen taken vide earlier order dated 28.6.2011 passed in civilapplication no.11957 of 2000. hence no further order on that count isrequired to be passed. so far as the prayer for expediting thehearing of the first appeal no.3613 of 2000 is concerned, the mattersof 1997 are yet to come up on board and considering the said aspect,in the routine course, the appeal shall be placed for hearing. whenthe first appeal no.3613/2000 is pending before this court, prayer 3(a) to the effect that the amount which had been fixed be ordered tobe paid to the applicant on furnishing the personal bond, is rejectedbecause of the pendency of the appeal as well as the fact that theapplicant is getting the interest accrued on the said fixed deposit.3. lastly,the learned advocate for the applicant has requested that if thefixed deposit is renewed, on maturity, for a period of 33 months, itwill fetch more interest. the said request is granted. the courtbelow is directed to renew/redeposit the fixed deposit in questionfor a period of 33 months and on expiry of the said period, it willbe renewed for a further period of 33 months till the disposal of thefirst appeal no.3613 of 2000. inview of the aforesaid, this civil application is disposed of. [g. b.shah, j.]msp     top