Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-16-2008
Reported in : (2009)1GLR498
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the above matters have arisen from the same Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, on 15.12.2007, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2007. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008 Hiteshkumar Madhusudan Adhvaryu was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and vide the impugned judgment and order, the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge awarded death penalty to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while he was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-15-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT664
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of six writ petitions, claims of one form, or the other, are made in respect of different extents of land, owned by a religious endowment, by name, Seethanna Chalivendram (for short 'the Institution'). Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are as under:One Sri Mallavarapu Seethanna was running a Chalivendram, near Venkatachalam village of Nellore District, to cater to the needs of the travelling public. An extent of Ac.399.70 cents of Kanupuru Bit-1 was endowed to the Chalivendram. While the petitioners in W.P. No. 20720 of 2007 state that the land was endowed by the erstwhile Nawabs of Arcot, according to the petitioners in W.P. No. 19562 of 2007, the endowment was made by Karnataka Nawabs. The land in various bits is said to be under the enjoyment of the petitioners, and their ancestors. The revenue was being collected by Seethan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : 2008BusLR908; 2009(1)CTC227; (2008)8MLJ261
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. $ 700 Billion bail out plan', 'Wall Street vanished', 'Lehman Brothers went belly up', 'Bear Stearns consumed', 'U.S. National Debt Clock runs out of digits' and 'AIG gone up in smoke' are some of the captions which have hit the headlines in recent times. All of those news items have a common denominator, called 'derivatives' and this case is all about derivatives.2. Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details. PRELUDE ABOUT DERIVATIVES3. 'Derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction' said Warren Buffett, one of the world's greatest investors, who overtook Microsoft Maestro in 2008 to become the richest man in the world and who is known as the 'Sage of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : (2008)8MLJ589
ORDERK. Kannan, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.I. The Lis:2. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions have challenged the order of removal from their respective services as teachers whose qualifications in teacher training course from Karnataka Education Board were found to be not genuine.II. Summary of Facts:Entry into service on certificate issued by Karnataka Board:3. The facts required to be stated in certain detail to stay in focus to the relevant issues at hand are:. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769/2004 claimed to have passed their SSLC examinations and joined the Private Teachers Training Institute called Sri Lakshmi Vidyalaya Teachers Training Institute, between the year 1979-1981. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769 of 2004 states that he wrote the annual examination during March 1982 and certificate was issued on 24.12.1982 by the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MhLj97
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Introduction1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a great orator and Roman Attorney said, 'The solidity of a State is very largely bound up with its judicial decisions'. The stability of State governance is relatable to the status of public law and order in the State. Protection to person and property of State subjects is the primary obligation of the State and this is the great significance of administration of criminal justice delivery system. Criminal jurisprudence governing the law of crime primarily has two concepts like any other legal jurisprudence:(i) Substantive criminal law; and(ii) Procedural criminal law.Provisions of substantive criminal law which are primarily penal in nature are subjected to rule of strict interpretation, while those relating to procedural law are guided by rules of plain and liberal interpretation. The Court, in the present cases, is concerned with the application of rules of interpretation to the procedural law particularly relating to the fie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Ker76; [2009]149CompCas409(Ker)
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner availed different financial assistance from different creditors, including respondents 1, 6 and 7. In 2005, the BIFR issued an order under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 hereinafter, the SICA, for short in pursuance to a reference made to it under Section 15 of SICA. In spite of those guidelines issued as per Ext. P2, nothing worked out and going by Ext. R3(g), the Indian Bank addressed BIFR, requesting to take suitable misfeasance proceedings against the company under the provisions of the SICA. It brought to the notice of BIFR that the movable assets of the company have already been stolen; the premises of the factory are under the control of anti-social elements; due to militant labour present in front of the factory, it is very difficult to enter into the factory and no workers have got their settlements ever since the factory closed; no security is available in the factory even to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT529
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent - A.P. Housing Board requiring the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,10,299/- for purposes of selling land admeasuring 49.33 Sq. yards situated at M.J. Road, at Hyderabad, in favour of the writ petitioner.2. The facts to the extent relevant are that the writ petitioner has occupied a vacant strip of land admeasuring 49.33 sq. yards belonging to the Housing Board. It was adjoining to Block No. 7, Pay and Accounts Office, situated at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner has been in occupation of this strip of land for a very long time now. He has earlier, in the company of Sri T. Prabhu Singh instituted WP No. 21801 of 1994 in this court seeking a writ of mandamus not to dispossess them from the land in question. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.3.1995 with a direction to the A.P. Housing Board to issue notice to the petitioners fixing up t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Raj38; 2009(1)WLN373
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The facts in brief as pleaded by both the appellants are that both the appellants fell in love with each other and without the consent of their parent entered into wedlock on 26-8-2006 by following the rites of Arya Samaj. They could not live together for a single day (or night) as immediately after their marriage, the fact of marriage of the appellants came in knowledge of their parents and they did not accept this marriage. Because of above fact situation only, the appellants stated that the 'appellants do not want to live together nor they want to continue this marriage relation because they contacted the marriage because of their lack of understanding'. They further pleaded that not only they did not live together for a single day (or night) after marriage, but they did not meet with each other for a single moment after the marriage. With these averments, the appellants, husband and wife filed present petition before the Family Court under Section 138 of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4587; 2008(12)SCALE608; 2008AIRSCW6273; 2008(5)LH(SC)3775.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Raipur, in S.T. No. 53/2000 who found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the `Atrocities Act') Life sentence was imposed in respect of the offence 302 IPC, however, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.3. Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows:On 20.8.2000 at about 6 p.m. Bholaram (PW-3) lodged a report in the Police Station Basna before Station House Officer D.K. Sharma (PW-9) to the effect that today at about 3 p.m. when he along with his father was digging groundnuts in their agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : (2009)1CALLT158(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Haldiram Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, has taken out this writ petition dated Februry 14th, 2008 seeking the following final reliefs:(a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and/or each one of them: (i) To act and proceed in accordance with law; (ii) To execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of plot No. C-5 being premises No. 1726, Rajdanga Road, Kolkata-700107 as stated in the notice innting tender, brochure and Deed dated 22nd May 2003; (iii) To withdraw/rescind/set aside the order dated 8th January 2008 canceling the Licence Deed being Annexure 'P55' and the Refund Advice dated 1st February 2008 being annexure 'P51' hereof;(b) A writ in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the respondent authorities and/or each one of them from taking any steps in furtherance to the order dated 8th January 2008 including taking over possession of the land from th...
Tag this Judgment!