Court : Gujarat
1. Present applicant is widow of one Rupabhai. Said Rupabhai had died in the year 1969 leaving his widow means present applicant, two minor sons and one minor daughter. Said Rupabhai owned agricultural lands admeasuring 113 acres, situated at village Balotri, Taluka Vav, District Banaskantha. Pursuant to amendment to Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 made effective from 1^st April, 1976, applicant filed declaration furnishing particulars of the lands held by her. Applicant having held land in excess of ceiling area, proceedings under the Act were initiated in Ceiling Case NO. 182/903/76. The Mamlatdar and ALT under his judgment and order dated 10^th August, 1982, hold that the applicant was entitled to retain one unit of ceiling area i.e. 54 acres of land. Lands to the extent of 59 acres 17 gunthas held by applicant were held to be surplus land. Feeling aggrieved, applicant preferred Ceiling Appeal NO. 98 of 1982 before the Deputy Collector, Tharad which was dismissed on 31^...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.8.1998 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing no. C-11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on 8.12.1966 by means of a registered sale deed from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh had purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed on 30.7.1966 from M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that there was a requirement of safeguarding this property inasmuch as, he was living in Narela, a separate area from where the suit property is situated, and therefore, when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, he was approached by the defendant no.1/respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Mewar Railway Staff & Trolley Contractor Sangh versus Union of India & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.697/2011 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order: 16th July, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA, J. Mr.J.P.Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Siddharth Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Dave, for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT: The matter comes up for final disposal at admission stage as per orders passed by this Court on 26th of May 2014. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 26th of May 2014, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request seeking permission of the Court [2].to withdraw the writ petition. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and thereupon following order was passed: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition but learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.157334 OF2018IN REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 11391140 OF2000IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2526 OF2000NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY APPLICANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.This is an application under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act) requesting this Court to hold that the applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code) was a juvenile on the date 2 of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of the applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. The applicant has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 19th February 1998 and 23rd February ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj224
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of damages instituted against the common defendant, the Kotah Transport Ltd., the appellant in all these appeals, by different plaintiffs, who are respondents to these appeals. First Appeal No. 21 of 1952 arises out of Suit No. 14 of 1949 instituted by the Jhalawar Transport Service Lid., the plaintiff in that suit, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Jhalawar. First Appeal No. 4 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 36 of 1949 instituted by the plaintiff Amar Nath Bhatia in the Court of the District Judge at Kotah, while First Appeal No. 5 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 37 of 1949 instituted in the same Court by the plaintiffs Suit. Gayatri Devi and her minor son Dhirendra. All these suits were field on the same day, that is, 29-7-1949. Most of the witnesses are also common, but Suit No. 14 of 1949. which has given rise to First Appeal No. 21 of 1952, was disposed of earlier on 29-3-1952, by the Civil Judge of J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2003Ker312; 2003(4)CTC193; (2004)186CTR(Ker)172; I(2004)DMC148; 2003(3)KLT6
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a Christian father under an obligation to maintain his minor child? More than three decades back, a Full Bench of this Court had considered this question in 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. P.M. Paily Pillai' 1972 KLT 24. Following an earlier decision of a Division Bench in Chacko Daniel v. Daniel Joshua 1952 KLT 595, it was held that the duty of the father was an imperfect obligation. It was not an actionable wrong. Thus, it was concluded that 'there is no legal obligation on the part of the Christian father to maintain his minor child'. Accordingly, the question was answered in the negative. The correctness of this view was questioned in these two cases. It was pointed out that discordant notes had been struck after the decision in Paily Pillai's case. The issue was referred to a Full Bench. Initially, the matter was listed before a Bench of three Judges. However, in view of the fact that a Full Bench had already considered the matter, the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR421
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. Two questions arise for decision in this second appeal. The first question is as to whether the will, dated 10th March 1950, was or was not executed in accordance with the requirements of law. The second question is as to whether the learned first appellate Judge had applied the correct principles of law for the purpose of satisfying his conscience that the aforesaid document was the will of the testatrix.2. The facts necessary to be mentioned in order to dispose of the aforesaid two questions are as follows. It is an admitted fact that the suit properties belonged to one Jivi. Jivi died on 13th March 1950. Both the lower Courts have found that plaintiffs, who are appellants, are the nearest heirs of Bai Jivi and as such were entitled to inherit her properties. The original defendant No. 1 was the son of a maternal uncle of Bai Jivi. He propounded a will, dated 0th March 1950, by which he was constituted the sole legatee to the estate of Bai Jivi. It appears that Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC916; 1979CriLJ792; (1979)3SCC646; [1979]3SCR78
KRISHNA IYER, J. THE DEADLY QUANDARY To be or not to be: that is the question of lethal import and legal moment, in each of these three appeals where leave is confined to the issue of the propriety of the impost of capital penalty against which the brutal culprits desparately beseech that their dear life be spared by the Summit Court and the incarceratory alternative be awarded instead. There is, as here, a judicial dimension to the quasi-Hamletian dilemma when "a murder most foul" demands of sentencing justice punitive infliction of death or the lesser punishment of life imprisonment, since the Penal Code leaves the critical choice between physical liquidation and life-long incarceration to the enlightened conscience and sensitized judgment of the Court. A narration of facts is normally necessary at this early stage but we relegate it to a later part, assuming for the nonce the monstrosity the murder in each case. Is mere shock at the horrendous killing sufficient alibi to extinguish ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj223; 1964CriLJ541
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittals of the three respondents by the City Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 2020 of 1962. The State has now come in appeal and prays that the acquittals of these three persons should be set asidu.2. The appeal is filed under Section 417. Criminal Pro. Code, which provides that the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. Section 419, Cri. P. C. provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition. As there were three accused persons at the trial and all of them are acquitted, the question is whether there are three orders of acquittal or whether there is one order of acquittal. If two persons P and Q are jointly tried at one trial, one may be convicted and the other acquitted in which case there is one order of conviction and one or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD704; 2006(5)ALT408
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20.01.1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service, as confirmed in proceedings dated 16.04.1996 of the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revisional order dated 5/6-01.1999 of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Railway Protection Force (for short 'R.P.F') Constable on 26.08.1985. According to the petitioner, after completion of duty on 30.09.1994, and on coming to know that his wife was behaving abnormally, he went to his native place. Petitioner contends that he gave a 'Security Control Message' on 02.10.1994 at about 5.30 A.M. seeking ten days leave, since his wife had expired. Petitioner submits that his father-in-law gave a false complaint against him and his parents in C.K. Dinne police station and that he was arrested on 02.10.1994 itself.3. The 1st respondent is...
Tag this Judgment!