Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-01-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2216
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17-2-1981, passed by Sri D.C. Srivastava, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, district Varanasi in S.T. No.9 of 1980, convicting the appellant under Section 396 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo one year's R.I.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :-Raj Narain (PW4) had his house at village Pandeypur, P.S. Suriyawa, district Varanasi. Ram Adhar deceased was uncle of Raj Narain (PW4). On the night of 16-10-1979, Raj Narain was sleeping in his verandah of Dalan. Ram Adhar, deceased was sleeping outside the house under a Neem tree. Ladies of his house were sleeping inside the house. At about 10-11 p.m. 10-11 dacoits armed with country made pistols, lathis and torches came to the house of Raj Narain, (PW4). The dacoits caused injuries to Raj Narain (PW4)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : (2002)2GLR1265
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the matter is heard finally.2. The original plaintiff has filed this Appeal From Order under Section 104 and Order 43 Sub-clause (r) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order of 8th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda passed on 7-11-2001 on Exh. 5 dated 24-10-2001.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this A.O. are as under :The appellant had tiled Special Civil Suit No. 906 of 2001 against the respondents in the Court of 8th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.) at Baroda on 24-10-2001 for declaration and the injunction to the effect that the Certificate of Seaworthiness obtained by respondent No. 2 was fraudulent and for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from making payment to the bankers of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1-I.D.B.I, Bank Ltd. against whom the injunction was sought had filed its reply Exh. 12 on 2-11-2001 in the Court. The respondent No. 1-Bank which had opened a Letter of Credit (L.C.) at the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : [2002]255ITR194(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. A very novel question is involved in this revision.2. The assessee is a company. It was liable to pay the agricultural income-tax and was regularly paying the tax for the relevant assessment years. For the purposes of the assessment, the assessee-company had chosen its assessment year to be from July to June, that is for the year 1990-91, its assessment year was from July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. So also, for the year 1991-92, the assessment year was from July 1, 1990 to June 30,1991, and for the year 1992-93, it was from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. However, it seems that the Agricultural Income-tax Act was extensively amended with effect from April 1, 1992, and the definition of 'previous year' as it appeared earlier vide section 2(t) underwent a change. The term 'previous year' is now defined as :' 'previous year' means twelve months ending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD640; 2002(2)ALT16; I(2003)DMC109
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. 1. The appellant herein is the wife. The respondent herein is the husband. The husband-respondent herein filed OP No. 340 of 1996 in the Family Court at Secmiderabad for divorce under Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(ib) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad heard the matter on merits and was pleased to allow the petition and the marriage between the appellant herein and the respondent herein solemnised on 11-12-1994 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Family Court, the wife-appellant herein has filed the present appeal. 2. The averments made in the original petition can briefly be narrated as follows: The parties herein are referred to as 'petitioner and respondent' as arrayed in the original petition. The husband-petitioner stated in his petition that he is the son of Col and Mrs. T.R. Reddy, He is M.Sc with Horticulture. He is working with M/s, Harrison Malayalam Kerala. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : AIR2002AP228
R.M. Bapat, J. 1. The appellant herein is the wife. The respondent herein is the husband. The husband-respondent herein filed O.P. No. 340 of 1996 in the Family Court at Secunderabad for divorce under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(1b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad heard the matter on merits and was pleased to allow the petition and the marriage between the appellant herein and the respondent herein solemnised on 11-12-1994 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, order of the Family Court, the wife-appellant herein was filed the present appeal.2. The averments made in the original petition can briefly be narrated as follows.The parties herein are referred to as 'petitioner and respondent' as arrayed in the original petition. The husband-petitioner stated in his petition that he is the son of Col. and Mrs. T. R. Reddy. He is M.Sc. with Horticulture. He is working with M/s. Harrison Malayalam, Kerala. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided on : Jan-30-2002
Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT568Tri(Kol.)kata
1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna, vide which he has confiscated 459 bags of betel-nuts with an option to the appellants M/s. Kamakheya Trading Co. to redeem the 341 bags on payment of a fine of Rs. 6.00 lakh (Rupees six lakh) and another option to M/s. Radha Kishan Ramesh Kumar to redeem 118 bags of betel-nuts on payment of a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakh).The truck transporting the said betel-nuts has also been confiscated with an option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh). In addition, personal penalties as shown below have been imposed upon the various persons :-(i) M/s. Bikaner Assam Roadlines Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand)(ii) Shri Sushil Kumar Daga Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand)(iii) M/s.Radha Kishan Ramesh Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) Kumar(iv) M/s. Kamakheya Trading Co. Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1998; 2002(3)KarLJ280
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner, an investigative journalist is knocking the doors of this Court on the foundation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by way of a bail petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the following factual matrix.2. The petitioner was arrested by the Rampur police on 20-11-2001 in Crime No. 100 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Section 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation a voluntary statement was obtained from the petitioner. In that statement he has stated that he would show the hidden explosives by Sri Veerappan and his associates in the year 2000 in the forest area and also the gun and bullets kept by one Ramesha, an associate of Sri Veerappan. On the basis of this statement, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Rampur police station along with panch witnesses accompanied the petitioner and they were taken to Konganakaduvu forest area.3. Petitioner showed the spot where the hidden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-30-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)WLN377
Jagat Singh, J.1. By this joint appeal Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. accused appellants Moolchand and Daulat Ram have challenged judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.3.1998 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while convicting accused appellant Daulat Ram Under Section 376 I.P.C. and Moolchand Under Section 376 read with 109 I.P.C. awarded each of them seven years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Both the accused appellants were simultaneously convicted for an offence Under Section 450 I.P.C. and each of them has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record available on the file.3. To appreciate the rival submissions the brief resume of the facts is necessary. At 6.30 PM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-29-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2504
ORDERThe Court 1. Report has been filed by Shri Nilesh Kumar, Advocate in pursuance of the Court's order dated 23rd January, 2002. Alongwith the Report, Shri Nilesh Kumar has annexed a copy of the communication dated 22nd January, 2002, from the Medical Superintendent, RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi, addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, South Chota-nagpur, Ranchi, enclosing also therewith a list of 48 Inmates of the Institution (RINPAS) and informing the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi. that these 48 persons are now mentally fit for being discharged from this Institution.2. This case was filed as Public Interest Matter after this Court received a Postcard from eight Inmates of RINPAS alleging that despite their having now been declared medically fit, they are being kept un-authorisedly and illegally in the aforesaid Lunatic Asylum and are not being discharged. Having treated the aforesaid Postcard as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) we requested Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!