Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)1GLR522
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The present revision application is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed below Exh. 7 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1982. The facts of the case can be briefly summarised as under:2. The Opponent No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging that they had published a printed leaflet making false imputation against opponent No. 1. The said leaflet contains defamatory statements. The learned J.M.F.C. held an inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decided to issue process for offences punishable Under Sections 500, 193, 195 r/w. Section 109 of LP. Code against the applicant. As the offence punishable under Section 195 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the applicants to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial.3. At the stage of framing the charge, Opponent No. 1, who is a practising Advocate submitted an application E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj3186
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, an elected Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Merta City, was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, however, the order aforesaid came to be stayed by this Court in SBCWP No,6647/2006 on 29.11.2006 after hearing the parties.2. An explanation from the petitioner thereafter under a communication dated 23.1.2007 was sought by the Government relating to several allegations, those were said to be found prima facie proved in a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director (Administration), Department of Local Self Government.3. A reply denying all the allegations was given by the petitioner but the Government under an order dated 11.6.2007 decided to hold a regular inquiry against her as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959'). By the same order the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP391
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 264 of 1958 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. His revision petition is directed against the order made on 13-12-1958 by the Sessions Judge, Chitoor, in C.R.P. No. 13 of 1958 filed under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code by which the case was remanded for further inquiry in the light of the observations in the order and was transferred to the Principal District Munsif-cum-first Class Magistrate, Tirupati for disposal according to law. 2. The case was instituted on a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalli. It appears that the petitioner was the Examiner of Copies in the Court of the District Munsif. Madanapalli and that he entered the Chambers of the Dist. Munsif at about 1 p.m., on 18-1-1958 for some official work. The District Munsif objected to his having entered the room without prior permission, sent him away from the room and a little later found fault...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1993Ori180; 75(1993)CLT352
Hansaria, C.J.1. The mighty says to the meek that you cannot command me to act; I shall act if f like, I shall not act if I choose not to act. The meek says that I possess the strength of law to give you the command; the law, which is no respector of person and which does not allow anybody to rise so high as to be above it. This could be the scenario if what has been submitted by Shri Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the State, were to be accepted by us fully.2. In the background of the present case, the point involved may be pithily put, on our going whole hog with Shri Patnaik, as to whether the Presiding Officer of a small munsifi in a small hamlet of Orissa (say, Nowrangpur in the district of Koraput) can call upon the all powerful Prime Minister of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, as visualised by Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') (hereinafter referred to as the 'judicial inquiry'), if the small Munsiff be of the view that any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj63; (1975)0GLR137
Thakkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two cross appeals arising out of the judgment rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in jurisdiction civil suit No. 52 of 1967 on 30, November 1967. The two appeals are First Appeal No. 1062 of 1968 by the State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer who were original defendants and First Appeal No. 1063 of 1968 by the original plaintiff. Both the sides have filed the appeals because the Trial Court has decreed suit partly and both the sides feel aggrieved to the extent they have failed.2. The main controversy in the suit centres around the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued b the competent authority for the purpose of acquiring the land belonging to the plaintiff admeasuring 5 acres and 39 Gunthas comprised in S. No. 9 of village Deni Limda situated beyond the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom13; (1933)35BOMLR1114
N.J. Wadia, J.1. In Civil Application No. 800 of 19S2 the petitioner obtained an order from the High Court directing the opponent to furnish security for costs to the extent of Rs. 1,470. In the ordinary course the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, was directed to take the security as the opponent was from that district. The order did not expressly state that security was to be furnished to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted one Basappa Shidlingappa Hoskoti as surety on the report of the Mamlatdar of Hubli that Basappa was solvent to the extent of Rs. 1,470. The petitioner Rayappa had made an application to the Mamlatdar objecting to Basappa being accepted as a surety and asking that certain documentary evidence which he wanted to produce in support of his objection should be admitted. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order below this application that he did not see any reason to interfere with the considered opinion of the Mamlatdar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR281; 1969MhLJ472
Patel, J.1. By this application the petitioner seeks to challenge the order made by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in an election petition preventing him from inspecting the ballot papers in respect of votes acquired by respondent No. 1 at the local election. The short facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: Election to Shrirampur Municipal Ward No. 4 was held on June 3, 1967, under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act (XL of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). At this election 576 votes were cast. The counting was completed on June 4, 1967. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were the candidates from Ward No. 4. At this election, the petitioner was declared elected by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1 made an application to the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes which the Returning Officer, by virtue of the powers vested in him, rejected as frivolous. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 made an application to the District Court at Ahmedna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR737
Macleod, J.1. In January last the triennial election of eight Councillors for B. Ward Mandvi to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay was held according to the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. There were fifteen candidates and the result of the poll was duly declared by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 28 (/) of the Act. Under Section 28 (q] the first eight candidates were deemed to be elected.2. A petition was then presented under Section 33 of the Act by one Husenbhai Abdulabhai Laljee to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court praying that the whole election or the election of the eight Councillors or of one or more of them might be set aside and a scrutiny held. The fifteen candidates and the Municipal Commissioner were made respondents. The Chief Judge held an inquiry and set aside the election of Lakhamsey Nappoo and Khimji Hirji Kayani who occupied the 3rd and 6th positions amongst the successful candidates.3. The Chief Judge then c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR741
S.P. Goyal, J.1. This appeal from the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated Oct. 5, 1971, raises an interesting point of law as to whether a compensation claim for damage to property simpliciter can be entertained and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal under Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The appellant--Haryana State preferred a claim application before the Tribunal for an amount of Rs. 3,000/-by way of compensation on the allegations that five buffaloes of the progeny Testing Farm, Hissar, owned by the State, were killed by rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HRH-7467 on Sept. 17, 1970 by Duli Chand driver.3. The claim was contested by the respondent who also raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Relying on Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti Ram, (1970) 72 Pun LR 932, the Tribunal upheld the plea of the respondents and dismissed the petition. The correctnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad217
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, on a reference under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, in L. A. 0. P. No. 16 of 1978. Claimants I to 6 are the appellants.2. An extent of 1.78 acres comprised in S. F. No. 88 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a Depot for Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. There was a reference under Section 18 which was also disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge in L. A. 0. P. No. 15 of 1978, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,0001per acre. Since there was a dispute relating to the title, the matter was also referred to the learned Subordinate Judge under S. 31, land Acquisition Act.3. The said S. F. No. 88 measuring 1.78 acres and another extent of 1.96 acres comprised in S. F. No. 735 were the subject matter of an inam grant. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!