Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: nepali Sorted by: old Year: 2008 Page 2 of about 424 results (0.060 seconds)

Asif Mamu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC600; RLW2009(2)SC1364; 2008AIRSCW7744; 2008(6)LHSC4251

..... order of acquittal passed by the trial court in sessions trial no. 379 / 1996, whereby, appellants asif mamu and mukhtiyar malik @ javed, besides accused rajiulla khan and sheru @ sher khan nepali [in short 'asif', mukhtiyar', 'rajiulla' and 'sheru', respectively] were acquitted. criminal appeal no. 718 of 2007 arises out of the said common judgment of conviction passed by the high court .....

Md. Mamtaz Ali Vs. the State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

..... both gitarani and urmila since they refused to satisfy his sexual desire. he had further stated that accused mantaz ali caused death to them by cutting their necks by a 'nepali khukri' he was having with him. accused mantaz ali declined to confess before the court though he had admitted his involvement in the crime. since there was no eyewitness to .....

Shyam Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC370

..... , shops or persons available near the place of recovery. he denied his knowledge in case there is small house above the place where the accused was arrested or 3-4 nepalis reside near the residence of the accused. pw-1 hhc hem raj has clearly stated that he was sent in search of local and independent witnesses, but he could not .....

Jeweltouch (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naheed Hafeez Quraishi and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR285; 2008(2)ARBLR321(Bom); 2008(3)BomCR217; 2008(3)MhLj54

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, two reliefs have been sought pending the commencement and conclusion of arbitral proceedings: (i) The appointment of a Receiver in respect of a plot of land which forms the subject matter of the dispute, with a direction to the Receiver to take possession and hand over possession to the Petitioner; (ii) An order of injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the plot. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of Abdul Hafeez Khairulla Quraishi (Patrawala) who died on 31st July 2005. During his lifetime, the deceased entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of 9th June 2005 under which he is alleged to have agreed to transfer and assign his right title and interest in a plot of land at the Bandra Kurla Complex, bearing CTS No.4207, admeasuring 819.3 sq.mtrs. to the Petitioner. The deceased, the Petitioner and the Eighth Responde...

The State of Gujarat Vs. Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2008)3GLR2173

Anant S. Dave, J.1. In this application, which is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Judge (Coram : D.H. Waghela, J.) vide order dated 29.10.2007 issued Rule making it returnable on 2nd November, 2007. On 18th December, 2007, when another cognate matter being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12646 of 2007 of co-accused was listed for hearing, order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the apex court in Contempt Petition (Cri.) No. 8 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 6 of 2007 was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties where reference was made to Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12646 of 2007 and 12644 of 2007 pending before this Court, the hearing of which was fixed on 18th and 20th December, 2007 respectively. Accordingly, on 18th December, 2007, oral order came to be passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12646 of 2007 by this Court by directing the Registry to list both the abov...

Shiv Singh Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT41

ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of Village Shahpura Bhitoni, District Jabalpur, a social worker and a voter of Shahpura Panchayat as a pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition for debarring the respondent No. 9, Gulab Singh Gond, from continuing on the post of President, Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura as he is not entitled to continue on the said post because he has incurred the disqualification as envisaged under Section 36(1)(a)(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act').2. At the very outset we are obliged to state that colossal objections were raised by Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel appearing for the ninth respondent about the locus standi of the petitioner and immense emphasis was put on the language employed under Section 36 requiring this Court to place an interpretation on the said language to highlight that the structure which is sought to be built by the petitioner relating to the disqualification of the said respond...

In Re Duffy (Fc) (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

Court : House of Lords

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Mr Duffy, the appellant, is a member of the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Coalition. He applied for judicial review to challenge the appointment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 30 November 2005 of two new members of the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland. Those members are Mr David Burrows and Mr Donald Mackay (who has since resigned from the commission). Mr Duffy’s challenge was based on a number of grounds directed to the suitability of Mr Burrows and Mr Mackay to be members of the commission and to the process leading to their appointment. His challenge was upheld, on a limited ground, by Morgan J but was rejected by a majority of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Kerr LCJ and Campbell LJ, Nicholson LJ dissenting) in the judgment now under appeal ([2006] NICA 28, [2007] NI 12). Background 2. The holding of public parades, processions and marches has long been cherished by adherents of both the main traditions...

<td Class=btext Bgcolor=#ffffff><span Class=boldtxt>parties :</Span> a ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. These six appeals all raise the question of whether claims for sexual assaults and abuse which took place many years before the commencement of proceedings are barred by the Limitation Act 1980. The general rule is that the period of limitation for an action in tort is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrues. This period derives from the Limitation Act 1623 and is now contained in section 2 of the 1980 Act. All the claimants started proceedings well after the six years had expired. It follows that, if section 2 applies, their claims are barred. But sections 11 to 14 contain provisions, first introduced by the Limitation Act 1975, which create a different regime for actions for “damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty", where the damages are in respect of personal injuries. In such cases the limitation period is three years from either the date when the cause of action accrued or the “date of knowledge” as defi...

Boss Holdings Limited (Appellants) Vs. Grosvenor West End Properties a ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. LORD RODGER My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY My Lords, 5. The s...

In Re Hilali (Respondent) (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus)

Court : House of Lords

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal and make the order which he proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. This is an appeal against the grant on 25 April 2007 by the Divisional Court (Smith LJ and Irwin J) of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the respondent, Farid Hilali, on the ground that his detention in custody while he was awaiting extradition under a European arrest warrant had become unlawful due to a fundamental change in circumstances since the making of the extradition order: [2007] EWHC 939 (Admin); [2007] 3 WLR 621. 3. On 29 April 2004 the appellant, the Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National Court, Madrid, issued a European arrest warrant seeking the extradition of the respondent to Spain for the purpose of his being prosecuted there for participation in a ...