Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1297; 2004(2)WLC395
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in Sessions Case No. 51/95 for having committed the murder of Neelu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated 2nd March, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Section 302 IPC : to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-,in default to further suffer one year simpleimprisonment.Section 364 IPC : to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simpleimprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story a case Under Section 302 IPC was registered by Police Station, Gangapur City on the basis of the written information of Asaram on July 16, 1995 and investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested alongwith his brother Ravi. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1891)ILR14Mad441
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The first question referred for our decision is whether a suit to enforce the acceptance of a patta can be maintained in a Civil Court, and I think it should be answered in the affirmative. So early as 1879, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Karim v. Muhammad Kadar I.L.R. 2 Mad. 89 that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. In 1889, however, another Divisional Bench expressed a doubt in Narasimha v. Suryanarayana I.L.R. 12 Mad. 481 as to whether the suit would lie in a Civil Court inasmuch as the duty of accepting a patta and giving a muchalka was one imposed by statute and a special remedy for enforcing it was prescribed by the same statute. It was, however, observed that the object of Act VIII of 1865 in requiring the exchange of patta and muchalka was to insure the existence of evidence of the terms of the holding, and as a landlord could, on a proper occasion arising, certainly maintain a declaratory suit, so, in such suit, he might obtain by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ163
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the clashes between various castes in Thevaram Village and other places in Madurai district in September, 1989 made under G.O.Ms.No. 1547, Public (Law and Order-B) Department, dated 19.9.1989.2. The petitioner alleges that he is a permanent resident of Chimanur in Madurai district and he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He also alleges that there were communal riots in the years 1957,1968,1978,1988 and 1989 and inspite of stringent provisions of Law under the Criminal Procedure Code, and Indian Penal Code, killing of Scheduled Caste people are going on day by day and as such they are forced to defend themselves by all means within their reach. It is further stated in the affidavit that in connection with the recent Bodinaickanur communal clashes, the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed one Member Inquiry Commission to be headed by Justice Bhaskaran of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal477
Holmwood, J.1. The question has arisen on a rule issued by us to show cause why an order made under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the Shahabad district should not be set aside, whether the Criminal Bench has jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Civil and Revenue Courts made under that section. The rulings are very conflicting on the point and it seems necessary to have the matter settled by a Full Bench. The difficulty has been got over on more than one occasion by the appointment of a Special Bench by the Chief Justice to hear such applications, but it is obvious that this causes unnecessary delay and embarrassment to applicants, and there seems to be no reason why the matter should not be settled once for all.2. Our own view of the matter in a recent case was that there was no question as regards the jurisdiction of the High Court in sanctions under Section 195. There it is expressly laid down that any sanction given or refused u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting the complaint against the repudiation of a claim under a life insurance policy in favour of his deceased wife, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Exts.P3 and P5 orders by the respondents and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to honour the policy No.773896707 issued in favour of late Lalitha and disburse the amount due thereunder to the nominee, the petitioner herein. (iii) declare that the reasons stated by the respondents to repudiate the claim put forward by the petitioner is highly unsustainable and vitiated by arbitrariness." 2. The petitioner's wife, Lalitha, took Ext. R2(a) insurance policy dated 28-2-2002, for ` 50,000/- from the 2nd respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India. She di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.12869 & 12653 of 2013 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------------- In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013 Sudhansu Sekhar Sabat and others Petitioners In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013 Orissa Private Engineering College Association, (OPECA) Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Employment and Technical Education and Training, At- Niyojan Bhawan, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar and others For Petitioners : Opposite Parties. (in both the cases) Mr. Budhadev Routray Sr. Advocate M/s. Sambit Kar, S.K. Barik, S.Mohanty, B. Das, T.Sinha & S.K. Sethi [In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013]. M/s. Devi P. Dash & S.K. Barik [In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013]. For opposite parties : Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate [For O.P. No.1]. M/s. A.K. Mishra, A.K. Sahoo, S. Bhanja [For O.P.No.2-BPUT]. M/s. Subir Palit, A.K. Mahana, A.Mishra, A.Kejariwal & Mrs. R. Trip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.12869 & 12653 of 2013 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------------- In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013 Sudhansu Sekhar Sabat and others Petitioners In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013 Orissa Private Engineering College Association, (OPECA) Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Employment and Technical Education and Training, At- Niyojan Bhawan, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar and others For Petitioners : Opposite Parties. (in both the cases) Mr. Budhadev Routray Sr. Advocate M/s. Sambit Kar, S.K. Barik, S.Mohanty, B. Das, T.Sinha & S.K. Sethi [In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013]. M/s. Devi P. Dash & S.K. Barik [In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013]. For opposite parties : Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate [For O.P. No.1]. M/s. A.K. Mishra, A.K. Sahoo, S. Bhanja [For O.P.No.2-BPUT]. M/s. Subir Palit, A.K. Mahana, A.Mishra, A.Kejariwal & Mrs. R. Trip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1/24 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER2017BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.Nos.54502-506/2015 c/w W.P.No.55503/2015, W.P.Nos.50150/2015 & 12951/2016, W.P.Nos.59387/2016 & 5792-5793/2017 & W.P.No.22859/2013 (GM-KEB) IN W.P.Nos.54502-506/2015 BETWEEN:1. 2. 3.4. SRI. P. MALAPPA S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH AGE52YEARS RESIDING AT NO.48 VIDYANAGAR, DASARAHALLI POST BENGALURU 560057. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT48YEARS NO.63 1ST CROSS, NANJAPPA BUILDING OPP OLD CMC, DASARAHALLI POST BENGALURU 560057. SMT. MALA W/O MUNICHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT46YEARS R/AT BEERAIAHNAPALYA KANASAVADI HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 561203. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT44YEARS RESIDING AT TOTAGERE5 Date of Order 16-10-2017 W.P.Nos.54502-506/2015 & Connected matters Sri.P.Malappa & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 2/24 HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 562123. MALAMMA W/O SRI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1919)21BOMLR1155
The plaintiff, a Vatandar Patil, was, under an order of Government, dismissed from his office, and his life-interest in the Patilki Vatan was forfeited. He sued the Secretary of State for a declaration that the order of Government was illegal and did not legally effect forfeiture within the meaning of Section 61 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, and for possession of the lands. The lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 4(a) (1) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The plaintiff appealed contending that Section 4(a) (1) was ultra vires of the Government of India:--Held:That Section 4(a)(1) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act was not ultra vires of the Government of India, inasmuch as a claim like the plaintiff's could not have been brought in the ordinary civil Courts against the East India Company by virtue of the preamble to Act XI of 1852.Secretary of State for India v. Moment I.L.R(1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 27, applied.Macleod, C.J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom242; (1953)55BOMLR86; ILR1953Bom1187
Chagla, C.J. (1) These two petitions before us challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions of Act 29 of 1950 which is the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In the first petition the petitioner is S Swetamber Murtipujak Jain and a resident of Vejalpur in the Panch Maha's District and the petitioner is the 'vahivatdar' of a Jain Derasar situate in that place in the second petition the petitioners arc the trustees of the Parsi Panchayet Funds. Both the petitions challenge the Act on more or less identical grounds. It would be perhaps better if we first deal with the petition presented by the 'vahivatdar' of the Jain Derasar. Before we do so it would be perhaps advisable to look at the object with which the Act was passed and its main provisions.(2) The Act was passed to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Bombay. Chapter II of the Act sets up the establishment which consists of a Charity Commissioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!