Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-18-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT570; 2002(2)MPLJ588
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioner, a young man in his teens, has approached this Court for issue of a direction to the Board of Secondary Education (for brevity 'the Board') to take appropriate and suitable action against the person who had committed some mistakes and further to award Rs. 5 lakhs towards compensation for humiliation, mental shock and the loss sustained by the petitioner.2. The facts as have been exposited in the writ petition are that thepetitioner was a regular student of Class XII of Pandit Lajja Shankar Jha Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur. He appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination from the Centre No. 71012 in the months of March-April, 1999. The petitioner has narrated about the marks obtained by him in various subjects of his academic career to highlight that he is a meritorious student. The result of the examination was declared in the month of May, 1999. He was in puzzlement when he came to know that he had been declared failed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3426
..... often used to come to section 18-a, chandigarh. thus witness knew the accused previously. no doubt, both suresh kumar and sewak ram had stated that they could identify the nepali boy if he comes across them. while stating the version as has come in the statement of sitla parshad they had not specifically named the petitioner-accused. admittedly, during the ..... been falsely named in this case on suspicion for the crime mainly on the ground that he was one of the nepali boys who were playing volley ball in the ground near veerka dairy in sector 18-a, chandigarh where other nepali boys were also playing with him. though prosecution had cited three eye-witnesses, namely, sitla parshad, suresh kumar and ram .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2683
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 26-2-1981 passed by Shri M.G. Godbole, the then Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Oral in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1980 whereby the above named appellants have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that in the evening hours of 11-8-1980, Chhadami, P.W. 1, father of deceased, was sitting on the chabutra of his house. His cousin Hari Singh, P.W. 2, Gopal, P.W.3 and Ram Swaroop were also present there. They all were talking with each other. At about 7.30 p.m. Jalim Singh, Chhadami's son went out of the house to purchase Biri, shortly thereafter Chhadami and other witnesses heard cries of Jalim Singh coming from the side of Khandhar (dilapidated house) of Khannaji, which was situated in the east of the house of the complainant at a far distance. Chhadami and the above named witnesses rushed towards that side and saw that all the three appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)148; 97(2002)DLT756; 2003(1)SLJ111b(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1.The petitioner in this case was a Gunner working in the office of respondent No.3. He proceeded on 36 days's annual leave from 26 th January 1992 to 3rd March 1993. The said leave was allegedly sanctioned by the respondent No.3. Allegedly, while availing the said leave, he fell into a 'Khud' in his village on 26 the February 1992, as a consequence whereof, he sustained contusion in his right leg. He was taken to the nearby doctor at Thural, Himachal Pradesh and he was under his treatment from 26 the February 1992 to 9 the March 1992. He allegedly was admitted to the Government Medical College at Thural wherein also he remained under treatment from 10 th March 1992 to 15 th 1992. A purported information to the said effect was sent tot he Commanding Officer of the Unit of the petitioner. The petitioner rejoined his duties on 23rd April 1992 and produced his medical certificate. On 25th April 1992, he was informed that he would be tried by a Summary Court Martial.The cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2918
J.C. Gupta, J.1. All the four above named appellants have been sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Surendra Singh son of Rajvir Singh aged about 26 years. Appellant Rakesh has further been sentenced to two years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- for causing injuries to Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2, the mother of deceased Surendra Singh.2. As per the prosecution case incident occurred on 13-6-1992 at about 8 p.m. near the house of Amilal in village Mithli within the area of police station Baghpat, which was then in District Meerut. Appellants Ram Kumar, Jai Prakash and Devesh Kumar were said to be armed with country made pistols while appellant Rakesh and co-accused Parvendra with PHARSA and SPEAR respectively. It is alleged that all the accused persons caused as many as 19 injuries to Surendra Singh from their respective weapons. Shrieks and cries of Surendra Singh attracted his mother Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2 and brother Udai Singh to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN532(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Whether there is anything wrong in the decision dated 24-4-1990 taken by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') not to allow the advocates to practise as company secretaries is the principal question in these two writ petitions and, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 398 of 1990 Shri T.U. Khatri is the petitioner. According to Shri Khatri, he was granted certificate to practise law by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30-6-1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passed final examination conducted by the Institute and was admitted as an associate member of the Institute with effect from 30-10-1970. Subsequently, Shri Khatri was made fellow member of the Institute with effect from 23-8-1976. Upon application made by Shri Khatri to the Institute and upon fulfilment of requisite conditions including the no objection from the Bar Council of Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : I(2002)ACC680; 2002ACJ680; AIR2002SC1402; 2002(3)ALD1(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)926; 2002(3)ALT38(SC); JT2002(3)SC16; 2002(3)MhLj1; 2002(4)MPHT103; 2002MPLJ515(SC); 2002(2)SCALE
ORDER1. Issue notice in SLP (C) ..... ..... CC Nos. 1911and 2228/2002. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. AniiKatiyar, Advocate, accepts notice for the Union of India.2. Delay is condoned.3. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.4. These five appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in different Misc. Appeals onOctober 30, 2000. The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal(for short 'the Tribunal') is the appellant.5. The common question to be considered by us relates tomaintainability of a review petition before the Tribunal against anappealable order passed by it.6. To appreciate the issue involved it would suffice to refer to thefacts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4413/2001. The appellanttransported bamboo chips through Indian Railways to different millsin India. It is alleged that higher freight was paid by it to the Railwayson the basis of rationalisation of the fares on the ground thattransportation would be by a longe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT531(HC)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition is made challenging imposition of luxury tax under the W.B. Luxury Tax Act, 1994 in respect of imported Vanaspati from Nepal.2. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of the Treaty of Transit, Treaty of Trade and Agreement of co-operation to control unauthorised trade between His Majesty's Government of Nepal and the Government of India the internal taxation charges of the movement of the primary products of either contracting party to any market destinations in the territory of the other shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to the movement of its own primary products within its territory. The Vanaspati is one of such product for which the petitioners are paying more revenue.3. In exercise of power conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Government has given a general exemption under certain goods and effective rate of duty for imports from Nepal under General Exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs. 14,26,266/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants supplied lubricating oils to foreign going vessels as ship stores in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted such export without payment of duty on appropriate bonds being filed. Although such exports were made under bond for a number of years vide three show cause notices it was alleged that the facility was not available and therefore demand for duty as mentioned above was made covering the period December, 1998 to December, 2000. The duties were confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Notification 44/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 lubricating oils was shown to be a commodity eligible for export under claim for rebate in terms of Rule 12. He observed that there was no specific notification under Rule 13 for export of ship stores under bond. In ...
Tag this Judgment!