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 : 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 : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR187
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These two Notices of Motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and now transposed defendant No. 5, who had initially filed the suit as a next friend of the plaintiff respectively, can be disposed of by this common order.2. This is a case where two former employees of the deceased Hoshang Dalal, who was the brother of the present plaintiff Perin A. Dalal, are arraigned against each other for the noble(?) interest of protecting the estate of the plaintiff who is at the moment, because of her age and physical and psychological condition, is beyond understanding what the whole matter is about. But a few facts to understand the controversy which can be briefly narrated are as follows:The plaintiff Perin Dalal is the sister of one Hoshang Dalal (deceased). She is the sole heir of the deceased in accordance with the laws of succession governing parsi males dying intestate. Defendant No. 1 Roshan Minbattiwala was the secretary of the said deceased Hoshang Dalal for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-14-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Cal162,(2003)1CALLT68(HC)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. All the writ petitions are arising out of a common question i.e. grant of freedom fighters' pensions. Therefore, all the writ petitioners were directed to be taken for an analogus hearing to avoid proloxity and multiplications of proceedings. Although the common question is in respect of grant of freedom fighters' pensions but cases are categorised into three categories (a) cases which have been recommended by the State and accepted by the Union but subsequently refused to grant pension: (b) Cases recommended by the State accepted by the Union but later turned down by the Union; (c) Cases which have not yet been considered or recommended by the State or nipped in the bud for any cause which according to them are not fit and proper.2. In most of the cases I find that those are related to District Midnapore, State of West Bengal leaving aside few others. The Court cannot avoid but to take judicial notice that District Midnapore of the State of West Bengal was hot ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-12-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT441; 2002(2)MPLJ125
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. The question involved in this writ is a short one. The question is whether respondent No. 4 was qualified to bid for the dealership of Bharal Petroleum Corporation for commodity popularly known as LPG or in other words, whether respondent No. 4 was eligible for being considered for the dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation for LPG The question arises on following facts on which the petitioner has sought this relief in this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondent No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking. By advertisement published in News Paper dated 21-8-2000 (Annexure A), the respondent No. 1 invited application from candidates for grant of dealership of distribution of LPG cylinders for several districts in State of M.P. One such district was Shajapur. The respondent No. 1 had prescribed several conditions as an eligibility criteria for applying for the said dealership. In other words, candidates fulfilling the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR459]; (2003)ILLJ729Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed in the second respondent- management as Chemistry Lab Assistant, carpenter and pump operator on February 26, 1986, October 18, 1984, March 18, 1985, respectively. On March 31, 1988, the services of first and fourth petitioners were terminated. On March 17, 1988, the services of second and third petitioners were terminated. Hence, the petitioners filed claim statement before the Labour Court, Coimbatore questioning the non-employment along with 16 other employees on the ground that the same is illegal and unjustified and for an award, directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioners with full back-wages and continuity of services and other benefits along with compensation, interest and back- wages. The said dispute was adjudicated in I.D.No. 346 of 1989. By an award, dated February 16, 1995, the Labour Court, Salem, directed the second respondent herein to pay only compensation to the petitioners while declining reinstatemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Feb-06-2002
B.N.P. Singh, J.1. Though prosecution was launched also against Abdul Rauf along with the appellants but due to his absconsion from the proceeding, trial commenced only against Md. Mubarak Ali, Md. Sirajul, Haji Bhonu and Manzoor Hajam. All of them stood charged under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Mubarak Aii also stood charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on the record while acquitted Haji Bhonu and Manzoor Hajam, rendered verdict of guilt against Md. Mubarak Ali and Sirajul under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Md. Mubarak Ali also suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with direction that sentences passed against the appellant Md. Mubarak Ali shall run concurrently.2. The accusation appearing from the written report of Fakirchand Chaudhary was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1314; 2002(2)KarLJ322
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. One M.T. Mariswamy Gowda and nine others have filed this PIT, staring that the Indian Red Cross Society ('Society' for short) is a Society created by the IRCS Act, 1920 ('Act' for short). It has been constituted to achieve the noble goal of serving the sick, wounded and other people in need of medical and nursing care. It is stated that the petitioners are life members of the Society. It is stated that the third respondent has invited tenders as per Annexure-C, dated 4th December, 2000 to develop the plot bearing No. 26, Race Course Road, Bangalore, on lease basisand that on account of high-handedness of the Managing Body and in an arbitrary manner the property is being alienated to a private party causing enormous loss to the Society. It is further stated that pursuant to the tender, four tenderers were called but without giving opportunity to the other three tenderers for negotiation, the 3rd respondent has granted lease in favour of 4th respondent for a perio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1694; 2003(2)KarLJ276
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the repealed Act'), is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 27-6-1997 passed by the Small Causes Court in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980.2. The deceased respondent was the landlord and petitioner was the tenant in the Trial Court. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of deceased landlord. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively.3. The brief facts of the case are, the landlord filed petition in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980 under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the repealed Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and that the landlord requires the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant resisted the eviction petition denying the claim of the landlord and the jural relationship and taking variou...
Tag this Judgment!