Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-24-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1693
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th November, 2003 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9. Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2002 and Sessions Case No. 194 of 2002. whereby the present appellant, who is original accused No. 1 has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant is also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Rest of the accused persons were given benefit of doubt and had been acquitted. Against this order, the original accused No. l- appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Necessary brief facts of the case, are as un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-29-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)OLR58
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Refusal to grant pensionary benefits to an ex-Lieutenant of Indian Navy on the ground that he had been dismissed with disgrace from service is the subject-matter of this Writ application.2. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts necessary for appreciation of this case are as follows:The petitioner had joined Indian Navy on 20th January, 1973. After successful completion of training he was posted as Engineering Mechanic, II Class on 20th, July 1974. In course of time by dint of sincerity and merit he had been promoted to the cadre of Lieutenant with effect from 1.1.1985. In the year 1993 while he was working as a Logistics Officer in the ship INS Jamuna allegations having been levelled with regard to certain omissions and commissions, five charges were framed against him. After serving a charge-sheet he was put on trial in Court Martial. The initiation of trial before the Court Martial and the charges levelled against him were just like bolt from the blue. He was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Oct-29-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. At common law a lease is a contract between landlord and tenant which, if the landlord himself has or acquires an estate in the land, vests a leasehold estate in the tenant. The lease will ordinarily contain covenants to be performed by the tenant during the term of the lease and (in the absence of express contrary provision) these covenants mean what they say. A tenant who has covenanted to pay the rent during the term is liable to pay the rent during the term, whether or not he has assigned the leasehold estate to someone else. 2. This rule was changed by section 5(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, which provides that if a tenant assigns the demised premises, he is released from his covenants. But the change applies only to tenancies granted after the Act came into force on 1 January 1996. The common law continues to apply to earlier tenancies, but subject to restrictions contained in sections 17 to 20. For present purposes, the relevant r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009AP107
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners called in question the legality and validity of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules') notified by respondent No. 1 vide G.O.Ms. No. 537, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 11.10.2000.The petitioners, most of whom are industrial units involved in the processing and pulverizing of mineral and some of them who are lessees to extract mineral such as Granite, Dolamite, White Shale, Lime Stone, steatite have mainly felt aggrieved by the definition of 'Mineral' contained in Rule 2(1)(h) of the Rules as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 330 dated 14.06.2001.THE PETITIONERS' CASE:The case of the petitioners in short is that the definition of 'Mineral', which enlarged the scope of mineral as defined in Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') is far beyond the delegated power of respondent No. 1. The petitioners averred that by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)163; [2009]178TAXMAN22(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dt. 16th March, 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in ITA No. 83/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that assembling/job work done by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activity, which was a cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : [2009]308ITR222(P& H)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dated March 16, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 83/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC265
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Judgment Debtors against the order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the learned executing Court in an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been filed in the review petition preferred by the petitioner herein.2. The application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the Judgment Debtors Arvind Kohli and Amit Kohli (petitioners herein) praying that correction be made in the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Decree Holder. The learned Court holds that not only is the application vague, but the application for amendment of the decree does not show as to what the applicants-Judgment Debtors want. The first two paragraphs of the judgment hold:This order disposes of an application under Sections 151, 152 C.P.C. The pleadings as contained in paras 1 to 5 and also in the prayer clause are vague. The prayer clause is reproduced below:It is, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR446; 2009(3)KarLJ667:2008(5)KCCR3471:2009(1)AIRKarR475:AIR2009NOC1074.
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the final notification issued by the respondent No. l bearing No. HVD 49 MNJ 78 dated 14.5.1980 in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 97/2 situated at Challakere Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East, Bangalore.2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property in question having purchased the same under a deed of sale dated 8.3.1944. It is further contended that he had sold the said property in favour of one Kurian Thomas under a deed of sale dated 24.1.1980. It is further contended that Kurian Thomas has executed a General Power of Attorney as per Annexure 'F' dated 28.1.1995 in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioner and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of the said Power of Attorney. It is further contended that since the respondents are trying to demolish the constructions made on the said lands, she has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2442
S.K. Gangele, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 21.4.2005, passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 60 of 2004 for enhancement of compensation.2. Deceased Sunil Agrawal was going to paan shop on 1.7.2004 at around 1.30 p.m. when he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. MP 07-F 1488. Deceased died on the spot; report of the incident was lodged at the police station and an offence was also registered against the driver of the bus. Subsequently, the appellants filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal claiming the total compensation of Rs. 63,30,000. Appellants pleaded that they are wife and daughter of the deceased and deceased had been working as Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department and he had been receiving monthly salary of Rs. 23,000, after promotion he could get further enhancement of salary of Rs. 3,000. Vehicle was driven ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas267(P& H)
Permod Kohli, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order dated August 1, 2006 (Vijay Kumar Chopra v. Smt. Sudershan Chopra [2007] 140 Comp Cas 1), passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at New Delhi. It is relevant to briefly notice the factual background of the case (facts are being noticed from Company Appeal No. 21).2. The parties to the present appeals are shareholders and directors on the board of the company, namely, 'Hind Samachar Ltd.', a closely held company incorporated in August, 1949, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company has its registered office at Hind Samachar Buildings, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and branches at other places. The company is engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers, journals, magazines, books, etc., in Urdu, English, Hindi and Punjabi. One of its famous publications is Urdu daily newspaper 'Hind Samachar'. The company was initially formed by late Lala Jagat Narain, a renowned journalist of his time who was father of app...
Tag this Judgment!