Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ375; 2009(4)KCCR2313; 2009(4)AIRKarR385(D.B)
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. The writ petitions and the contempt of Court case are disposed of by this common order since they are interconnected.2. W.P. No. 3568 of 2007 is filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited (for short, 'NICEL') and two others seeking for quashing of the order dated 4-11-2006 passed by the State-first respondent in the writ petition (Annexure-P to the writ petition) and to prohibit the respondents and their servants and agents permanently from acting pursuant to the Government order dated 4-11-2006.3. W.P. No. 17550 of 2006 is filed by Dr. B.K. Chakrapani seeking for quashing of the order dated 4-11-2006 passed by the respondent-State (Annexure-A to the writ petition); quashing of the report of the fifth respondent-Chief Engineer, Communication and Building (South), Bangalore, dated 15-7-2006 (Annexure-Al to the writ petition) and to direct the respondents not to construct the peripheral road or any other road on or over the Gottigere Tank on pilla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). . OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7899-7900 of 2015) MANOJ PRATAP SINGH . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Table of Contents Preliminary 2 Relevant factual and background aspects 7 The Evidence 12 The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded death sentence 33 Deceased aged 7 years, mentally and physically challenged 33 Deceased last seen with the appellant 34 Discoveries on the information of appellant 34 1 Medical evidence 35 Report of FSL36Defence contentions rejected 37 Chain of circumstances complete 40 Death sentence by the Trial Court 41 High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant 44 Rival Submissions 48 The scope and width of these appeals 61 Procedural questions relating to investigation and trial 64 Concurrent findings of fact: whether requiring interference?. 67 Whether death sentence be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC845; [1960]3SCR250
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. In accordance with the directives issued by the Prima Ministers of India and Pakistan, on September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth, Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a joint note recording their agreement in respect of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prima Ministers; and with a view to removing causes of tension and resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing peaceful conditions along those areas, the Prima Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said joint note. This agreement has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the Agreement. 2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A.No.@SLP (Crl. No . 2073 of 2019 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1102 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2073 of 2019) Sri A.M.C.S. Swamy, ADE/DPE/Hyd (Central) ...Appellant Versus Mehdi Agah Karbalai & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R.Subhash Reddy,J.1. Leave granted.2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Officer of the State Distribution Utility Southern Power Distribution of Telangana Limited (formerly known as APCPDCL) challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.13678 of 2011.3. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has allowed the Criminal Petition No.13678 of 2011, which was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and quashed the proceedings in E.S.C. No.3 of 2011 on the file of 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Crl.A.No.@SLP (Crl. No . 2073 of 2019 2 4.(a) Respondent No.1 herein is a consumer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR63; IV(2008)BC73; 2008(5)BomCR909; 2008(2)CTLJ180(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Suit, filed on 8th April 1999, against the Defendants, is for recovery of sum of Rs. 3,46,07,726/-(Rupees Three Crores Forty-six Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred & Twenty-six) with further interest on the principal sum of Rs. 2,10,25,350/-(Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs Twenty-five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit until payment/realisation thereof. The Suit is already decreed ex-parte against the Defendant No. 1. It now proceeds against Defendant No. 2 only. 2. The Plaintiffs assert that the Office of the Textile Commissioner in the Ministry of Textiles of India used to release quota of raw cotton and cotton wastes for exports from time to time as per the then prevailing exim policy. As per the quota released, the Textile Commissioner issues Memorandum in the beginning of each cotton year specifying the terms and conditions for export of raw cotton and cotton wastes. That the Defendant No. 1 and GPB...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1983MP93
J.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner No.1, Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act. 1956, and having its registered office at Birlanagar, Gwalior, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner No. 2, Jai Narain Somani, is a shareholder of this company, The petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter called 'the Company') has a composite textile mill at Birlangar, Gwalior, wherein it manufactures yarn and textiles. For running its mill, the company requires electricity and had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, M. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') for supply of electricity to it in accordance with the specified terms and conditions. Under the agreement dated 27-10-1971, between the company and the Board, 1500 K.W. power as an H.T. consumer, wag to be supplied by the Board to the Company and the agreement was to commence from the date reckoned according to the stipulation therein. Supply of 1590 K.W. power under this agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1973Ker83
Isaac, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India, against whom the respondent got a decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1964 from the Sub-Court, Kozhikode for a sum of Rs. 14,604/- together with interest at 6% from the date of suit2. The facts are not in dispute to a large extent. The respondent sent 43 bags of betel nuts from Calicut Railway Station to Shalimar by railway on 24-1-1963. The goods reached Shalimar on 7-2-1963; and they were unloaded and stored in Shed No. 4/1 on the same day awaiting delivery to the consignee. Unfortunately at about 3-00 P.M. on 8-2-1963, a fire broke out in Shed No. 4; and it affected the goods stored in Shed No. 4/1 also, with the result 40 bags of the respondent's goods were partly destroyed. The undestroyed part was refilled in 25 bags; and those bags were delivered to the consignee after assessing the damages at 60%, along with the three bags found in sound condition. On the basis of the market value of the goods at the relevant time, the respondent claime...
Tag this Judgment!