Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR169
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the complainant in the trial Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.11.1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, in C.C.No. 2067 of 1986. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for respondent-1 and the learned Counsel for respondents-2 to 8 and 10. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Suburban Police Station, Hubli, which came to be registered at P.R.No. 190/86. Respondents-2 to 10 also filed a counter complaint. The police filed a charge sheet against respondents - 2 to 10. After investigation of the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered at C.C.No. 2067 of 1986 in the Court of the I Judicial Magistrate, Hubli, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 427 read with Section 149 l.P.C. The evidence was also taken. On 7.11.1990, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was incharge of that case filed a Memo u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP142
Bhimasankaram, J.(1) These two appeals under the Letters Patent are against the Order of a single Judge of the Madras High Court declining to grant a temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from taking possession of the lands in dispute pending the disposal of A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953.(2) The learned Judge took the view that, in the circumstances of these cases, no injunction could be asked for. Before we go into the question of law, it is desirable to state breifly the facts leading up to the present appeals.(3) A. S. Nos. 1013 and 1015 of 1953 are appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos 97 and 99 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Elurn. The suits were instituted by the appellant in these appeals for a declaration of his right of occupancy in the lands in dispute in each of the suits. The appellant is the arechaka of three temples, Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu, Sri Sitharamaswamy Vary and Sri Kesavaswami Varu in the village of D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD547; 2008(5)ALT341
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. These two appeals by defendants, are against judgment and decree dated 30.12.1988 in OS No. 33 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kavali. Appellant in AS No. 1541 of 1989 is aggrieved by the decree declaring that Shaik Hussain Bi (SHB), first respondent in appeal, is owner of items 1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties. Appellants in AS No. 568 of 1989 are aggrieved by Clause (2) of decree directing that they shall pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to SHB with future interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., 4.4.1980 till the date of realization. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, it is expedient to dispose of them by common judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their status in suit.Pleadings of plaintiff2. SHB filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of plaint-A schedule properties and for direction to defendants 2 and 3 or first defendant in the alternative to pay her a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(6)ALT113
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of lower Court dismissing the suit for partition based on unregistered Will.2. Lellapalli Sriramulu was medium farmer of Chittavaram village, near Narsapur town in West Godavari District. Seetaramaswamy and Radhakrishna Murthy are sons and Seetamahalakshmi and Balatripura Sundari are daughters of Sriramulu. Long prior to 1976, there was a partition between father and his two sons, in which Sriramulu got agricultural lands and tiled house. On 12.01.1976, Sriramulu executed a registered Will. Under this Will, he gave some property to two daughters, the eldest son and the wife of second son. Some time thereafter, he suffered paralysis. He was treated at Dr. Keshava Rao Hospital at Narsapur, during which either his two daughters or second daughter-in-law looked after him. After discharge from hospital, he spent his convalescence period at the house of second son at Narsapur, who statedly sold his share of prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(3)AWC1833; (1999)ILLJ1294All
M.L. Singhal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.6.1988 (Annexure-23), passed by the Deputy General Manager (East U. P. Zone). Punjab National Bank, Lucknow (respondent No. 2), removing Shri Ram Autar Garg (since deceased) from service, and order dated 25.12.1988 (Annexure-24), passed in appeal by the General Manager (Personal Division). Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal.2. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner Ram Autar Garg died, hence his widow, his daughters and sons, as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, have been brought on the record, A Division Bench of this Court hearing the writ petition, on 28.10.1996 dismissed the writ petition observing that since the petitioner has died, the petition does not survive. The heirs of the deceased carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Smt. Ush...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ20
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal, filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'Act'), is directed against the order dated 27th October, 1989, delivered by the Vth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore in Probate Case No. 67/78, thereby granting Probate of the WILL dated 3rd November, 1974, alleged to be executed by late Mahadeo Paranjape in favour of his daughter-in-law Shrimati Suman, wife of his son Anant.2. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The Respondent No. 1 (Smt. Suman) filed an application on 8-8-1978 for grant of probate of the will dated 3-11-1974. The testator died on 5-1-1975 at Indore. He was survived by six sons and four daughters. This will is said to be attested by Dinkar (PW-1), the husband of his daughter Smt. Vimal, resident of Dewas and Udaya (PW-2), the husband of his another daughter Smt. Udita, resident of Indore. The description of the property was shown in Annexures-A and B, attached to the aforesaid appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)126PLR115
R.L. Anand, J.1. Defendants in the trial Court have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1998, passed by the Court of Add). Distt. Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the appeal of the defendant-appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1996, passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagraon, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Guljit Singh for possession by way of specific performance.2. The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner:-3. Guljit Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 11.4.1989 against Buta Singh, Mohinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Jasbir Kaur and it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants 2 to 4 are recorded as owners of the suit property bearing khasra No. 175 Killa Nos. 4, 5, 6/1 as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, situated in Kacha Malak road, Agwar Gujjaran, Jagraon. Defendant No. 1 is the general attorney of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE732
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. On 16.2.2010 this Court had passed the following order:Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that arising out of the same judgment, the State of M.P. has also filed another Criminal Appeal No. 1540/2008 against the acquittal of Sangram Singh and requests that the said appeal may also be heard along with the present appeal.Criminal Appeal No. 1540/2008 is taken on board.The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. The reasoned order will follow.2. We now proceed to give the reasons.3. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 120/98 dated 10.4.2006. The High Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC.4. We may briefly notice the salient facts involved in this appeal. It was the case of the prosecution that eight accused persons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3123; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)485; 2005(2)BLJR1630; 2005CriLJ3454; JT2005(6)SC356; (2005)6SCC211; 2005(2)LC1073(SC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'the Act'). The appellant, was tried by the Special Judge (Vigilance) North Bihar, Patna. For each of the two offences as indicated above for which the appellant was convicted, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year which will run concurrently. This conviction of the appellant was maintained by the High Court in appeal.2. The only question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether on the evidence and materials on record, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified or they require to be set aside?3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal before this Court may be enumerated in the following manner:On 25th of June, 1985, Harendra Kumar Singh, the complainant (P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997(75)FLR250]; (1997)ILLJ241Raj
Mukherji, Actg. C J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 30, 1986 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/85, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner appellant filed a writ application impugning the order of removal from service, being Order No. 1306 dated May 5, 1984, passed by the Works Manager, Central Workshop (Leyland) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'the Corporation'), in course of a disciplinary proceeding, and the appellate order dated October 19, 1984 passed by the General Manager (Production) of the Corporation, rejecting his appeal. It was prayed inter alia by the writ petitioner appellant that he be declared to be on duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits, pay, allowances etc., and he be allowed interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of salary and a direction be given so as to reinstate him in service. ...
Tag this Judgment!