Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-13-2013
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. OWP No. 473 OF 200.New India Assurance Co. Ltd Petitioners Dr. Vishwa Mitter Soodan and Anr Respondent !Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Advocate ^Mr. Rohit Kapor, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge Date:13. 03.2013 : : (Oral) The respondents, doctors by profession, obtained insurance policy known as Doctors Composite Package Insurance Policy. A criminal prosecution was launched against the respondents by one Mr. O.P. Baru grandfather of the child patient, who was surgically operated upon by the respondents on 27th March, 1991 in a private nursing Home. The surgery was unsuccessful and it was alleged that child lost his life. After investigation, the respondents were send up for trial for having allegedly committed offence under Section 304-A RPC read with Section 34 RPC. The trial court framed charge against the respondents which was unsuccessfully called in question in petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The SLP filed before the Honb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-11-2013
LPA No.121 of 2007 [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.121 of 2007 Date of decision:11.03.2013 The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr...Petitioners versus Jagdish Ram alias Jagdish Singh alias Jagdish Chander & Anr...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** A.K.Sikri, C.J.(Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated December 21, 2005 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4505 of 1996. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the award of the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 in service. The main reason which swayed with the learned Single Judge was that the award in the case of othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-11-2013
CRA No.921-DB of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRA No.921-DB of 2008 Date of Decision :11. 03.2013 Manish ........ Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent and 2. CRA No.243-DB of 2009 Vijay ........ Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present:- Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. (in CRA-D-921-DB of 2008) Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the appellant. (in CRA-D-243-DB of 2009) Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana. R.P. NAGRATH, J.The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial by the CRA No.921-DB of 2008 -2- Area Magistrate for offences under Section 392, 397 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) while their co-accused Vikram was still to be arrested. Subsequently, V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-11-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2005 passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 392 r/w 397 and under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-Convicted UnderSentenced toSection 392 r/w 397 of IPCR.I. for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 500 IDRI for 1 Month.Section 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000 IDRI for 2 months.The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: First informant PW 4 Jaidev and deceased Govind were friends. They were residing and working together. On the day of the incident at about 05.00 a.m., they went to chowpatty. They were standing on sand, talking to each othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-11-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2006 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.678 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-Convicted UnderSentenced toSection 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500 IDRI for 3 Months.Section 309 of IPCS.I. for 15 Days.The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) First Informant PW 1 Mithu was residing in a bungalow situated at 785, R.K. Market, Kamathipura, Mumbai. She used to conduct prostitution business from the said place. There were six girls staying in her bungalow who were also indulging in prostitution business. Some of them were PW 2 Mee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :08. 03.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.29090 , 29091, 29888 and 29894 of 2012 and 3593 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1,2,1,2,1,2,1 and 2 of 2012, 1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2013 Dr.K.Nedumaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29090 of 2012 Dr.R.Mahadevan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29091 of 2012 Dr.K.Padmanabhan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29888 of 2012 Dr.K.Mylsami .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29894 of 2012 Dr.T.Ramesh .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3593 of 2013 Vs. 1.The Chairman, Ethics Committee, Medical Council of India, Sector-VIII, Pocket 14, Dwaraka, New Delhi. 2.Board of Governors in Super-session of the Medical Council of India, rep by its Secretary, Sector VIII, Pocket 14, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110 077. .. Respondents 1 and 2 in all writ petitions 3.Melmaruvathur Adhi Parasakthi Institute of Medical Science and Research, rep by its Dean, Melmaruvathur, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu-603 319. (R-3 impleaded as per order dated 26.11.2012 and 22.11.2012 in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.83/2007 Date of decision :8. h March, 2013 % VED PARKASH KHARBANDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal and Mr. S.S. Katyal, Advs. versus VIMAL BINDAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.N. Oberoi, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advs. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT 1 The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for specific performance passed by the learned Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as per their ranks in the plaint as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.2. Plaintiffs case The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant on 21st August, 1997. The case set-up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as under:2.1 RFA No.83/2007 agreement with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:31. 01.2013 Judgment pronounced on:07. 03.2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1200/2011 DHARMENDER KUMAR PAL Through: Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate. .. Appellant Versus STATE .. Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. Dharmender Kumar Pal impugns his conviction under Sections 302 and 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) vide judgment dated 07.02.2011. By order dated 11.02.2011, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for nine months. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
Crl. Misc. No.77407 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal not D-41-DB of 2009 -1- Nanak Chand and others Versus State of Haryana Present: None. *** The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.1- Nanak Chand during the pendency of the appeal. FIR in the case has been registered on the statement made by Suman who later died. On 15.10.2007, Suman made a statement before ASI Ram Kumar at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Suman stated that she was married to Vinot son of applicant/appellant No.1-Nanak Chand on 04.05.2003 at Chattarpur Mandir. They had three children from the marriage. It is alleged that her father-in-law (applicant/appellant No.1) had five sons. Billu was eldest while ViNo.(husband of Suman) was younger to him. Then there was Nepal (appellant No.2) and then Jaipal (appellant No.3) and the youngest was Kallu. Except Kallu all were married and were residing separately. It is further stated by Suman (deceased) t...
Tag this Judgment!