Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC259
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word 'building' used in Section 2 (1) (g) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:(a) to (f) ... (not relevant).(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word 'building' used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word 'building' means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.4. Landlord-respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400 per month. It was also stated that ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT32(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as President of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Mandi Samiti') in the election held on 20-1-2006 and on 24-1-2006. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Parsada, District Bilaspur, and voter in the Mandi Samiti. The respondent No. 5, despite having disqualification under Section 36 (m) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, i.e., the respondent No. 5 was having five living children out of which two were born after 26th January, 2001, filed nomination on 4-1-2006. The petitioner raised objection at the time of filing of nomination. The same was rejected. Thus, after election, this writ petition for declaring election of respondent No. 5 as void on the ground of having disqualification at the time of filing nomination.2. Shri B.L. Dembra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR407
Sanju Panda, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in O.S. No. 336 of 1997.2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.336 of 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for partition. After the suit was filed, the order of status quo was passed on 30.4.1998 at the initial stage of the suit. In the said application, the specific prayer made by the plaintiffs was that defendants 7, 16 to 18 and 26 be injuncted from cutting the trees standing on the suit land, digging the earth, constructing new house by preparing bricks and from putting fence over the suit land. The said order of status quo is still continuing.While the matter stood thus, defendants 16,17 and 18 purchased the aforesaid suit land by the virtue of the registered sale deed dated 3.9.1986. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-14-2008
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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-15-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1677
Saroj Bala, J.1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1981 whereby convicting the accused appellant No. 1 Om Prakash under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 307/34 I.P.C. and appellants No. 2 and 3 Jai Prakash and Ram Kumar under Sections 302, 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellant No. 4 Ganga Ram stood abated vide order dated 9-10-2007.2. The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial was that the first informant Kela Ram (P.W.3) was a peon in Janta Junior High School, Ganjalpur and Suresh Chand (P.W. 1) was the Manager of said school. There was a dispute over the office of Manager between Suresh Chand (P.W.1) and accused appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : AIR2009P& H73; (2009)153PLR469
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that in case a testator bequeaths his property jointly to two lineal descendants by way of a Will and if one of the legatees dies during the life time of the testator, whether the bequeathed property would be taken away by other surviving legatee in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') or if the legatee dies during the life time of the testator leaving behind his mother as Class-I heir and has no lineal descendant, should the mother take the share of that legatee in view of Section 109 of the Act and whether mother is a lineal descendant.2. The facts firstThe appellant is the mother-in-law of respondent Bhupinder Kaur;Kartar Singh (deceased) had two sons called Ujjagar Singh and Saudagar Singh. Ujjagar Singh had a wife Surjit Kaur and two sons Harinder Singh and Avtar Singh. Harinder Singh had a wife Bhupinder Kaur and a minor son Amritpal Singh, whereas Avtar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : [2010]321ITR104(Delhi); [2009]182TAXMAN59(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed in IT Appeal Nos 3416 and 3417/Del/2003 in respect of financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively. The sole issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the non-resident company Noble Denton and Associates Ltd, (NDAL), UAE for the transportation and jacking up of rigs, review of design and issuance of suitability certificate is covered under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 thereto or under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is in connection with deduction of tax at source.2. The Tribunal concluded that a reading of the provisions of Section 44-BB as well as Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act clearly showed that the consideration in question paid or payable by the assessee to NDAL for the services rendered was covered by the provisions of Section 44-BB and not by Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.3. This conclusion of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1104
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is filed by Moorthy son of Kuppan against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1991 by which the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-PW1, Palaniammal and her son, Murugan, the deceased in this case were in possession and enjoyment of a porambok land and regarding that there was a dispute at the instance of the accused claiming a right to enjoyment and possession to the said property. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers and the 3rd accused has two young children called Senthil and Subhash. The incident had taken place on 18.5.1988 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. Even on that morning there was an incident in which the parents of accused 1 and 2 and the wife of the 2nd accused sustained injuries which resulted in a complaint against the deceased and others before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2035
Jitendra Chauhan, J.1. On 13-6-1997 Sahun, the appellant, was summoned for trial for offence under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon Sahina aged about 6/7 years. The trial Court on 11-11-1998 held the appellant guilty of the offence charged, and vide order dated 13-11-1998 the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11/13-11-1998 11/13-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.3. On 20-2-1997, Jabbar Khan son of Khillu got his statement recorded before Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Police Post Bichhore that at about 9.00 a.m. when he came back from his field, his daughter Sahina, was found crying. Sahina told the complainant that Sahun son of Ismail took her to the fields of mustard cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : (2009)1MLJ7
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in A. No. 338 of 2002 dated 05.08.2008 and direct the respondents to continue him in service and to regularize his service in the post of Junior Assistant.2.The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit, is as under:The petitioner's father, by name, I.Syed Akbar, who was employed as Head Clerk in the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram died on 10.11.2001, while in service. Pursuant to his father's death, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, as he possessed requisite qualification. After careful consideration of the application made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the order of appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 07.03.2...
Tag this Judgment!