Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-29-2013
LPA No.114 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM No.309 of 2013 and LPA No.114 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:29. 01.2013 ***** State of Punjab and another . .Appellants Versus Prem Kumar Rattan . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G.Punjab. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.K.SIKRI, C.J.(ORAL) The respondent joined the service in the State of Punjab on 7.4.1986. In the year 1999 he applied for two years leave to go abroad. He wanted to go to Canada. As per the respondent in the application submitted by him before proceeding on leave he had specifically stated the reasons namely as I have already got Canadian Immigration not I have to go there for Canadian Citizenship. So please allow me leave for two years.He did not remain there even for 2 years and before the expiry of the said leave of 2 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-29-2013
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.05.2012 in C.C. No. 90/11 by the Ld. District Forum, 24-Parganas(North), the OP thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Respondent/Complainant in its petition of complaint is that on 18.04.2010, the complainant took out an Insurance Policy being No. 770000 2055000101 from the OP in respect of the complainants retail outlet shop situate at 225, Rajdanga, Nabapally, Kolkata 700078 against Fire, Burglary, Money in Transit and Money in Safe, and Fidelity Guarantee which was signed by one Mahua Chatterjee, an authorized representative of the OP at their city office at Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata, valid from 00.00 hrs of 09.04.2010 till the midnight of 08.04.2011 and the sum insured for Fire was Rs.40,36,000=00,for Burglary, Rs.39,86,000=00, for Money in Transit Rs.54,75,000=00, for Money in Safe, Rs2,00,000=00, for Fidelity Guarantee, Rs.2,00,000=00. The gross premium was Rs.5,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.(MD).No.7 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 M/s.Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Vice President, Randhir Grover, NTPL Power Plant, Thoothukudi ... Appellant Vs.1) Sri Aishwarya Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, K.Lakshmipathy No.54, Rajaji Road, Block No.18, Neyveli-607 803.2) Neyveli Tamil Nadu Power Limited, (NTPL), Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, NTPL Power Plant, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the order dated 27.11.2012 made in I.A.No.392 of 2012 in AROP.No.470 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. !For Appellant ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For R1 ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Samidurai For R2 ... Mr.P.S.Sundaram :JUDGMENT The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by M/s.Ener...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28. 01.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A.No.11 of 2013 Linga Nadar .. Appellant -Vs- Manohari .. Respondent Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge of Tiruvallur made in A.S.No.14/2011 dated 10.07.2012 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri made in O.S.No.51 of 2005 dated 11.09.2009. For appellant : Mr.G.Thangavel ----- JUDGMENT The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit O.S.No.51 of 2005 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,613/- consisting of Rs.1,00,000/- as principal component and Rs.56,613 as interest component upto the date of plaint based on the allegation that the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- promising to repay the said amount with an interest at the rate of 24% p.a and executed a promissory note to the said effect on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL APPEAL(MD).No.300 of 2006 and CRL.RC.[MD].No.441 of 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL [MD].No.300 of 2006:- State, rep by, Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Appellant Vs. 1.V.Chinnathambi 2.M.Siva @ Sivanaindaperumal 3.V.Kittu @ Muthukrishnan 4.A.Velayuthakonar 5.M.Manthiram ... Respondents PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court not II, Tuticorin, dated 07.04.2006 and set aside the same. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor ^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Prabhu CRL.RC.[MD].No.441 of 2006:- Ramalakshmi ... Appellant ... Appellant Vs. 1.State, rep by, Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
Criminal Misc.-M No.17896 of 2011 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 28, 2013 Madan Lal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sukhdip Singh Brar, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stood surety for an accused, who was released on parole and thereafter has not reported back. Instead being in the dock for facilitating an accused to abscond, he has rather put the police at the receiving end. It is basically petitioner's responsibility to trace the absconding prisoner but he has cooly palmed of the same to the inaction on the part of the police. So much so that not Commissioner of Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013 3RD MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 2209 of 2013 (A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- AKZO NOBEL INDIA LIMITED MENATHOTTAM WAREHOUSE,T.C.NO.31/1738 VALLAKADAVU.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695508. REPRESENTED BY IT'S ACCOUNTS EXECUTIVE SRI.K.MURALI. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES COMMISSIONERATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695001.2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAXES,SQUAD NO.I,KOLLAM-691021 CAMP AT ARYANKAVU,KOLLAM. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2209/13 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STOCK TRANSFER INVOICE DATED ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-23-2013
ORDER (No.18 of 2013) HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN This application along with others between the same parties was heard by another Bench of the IPAB. Orders were reserved. The then Technical member retired before the orders were pronounced. So the cases were listed to be heard again. This application is for revocation of the patent No.198648 (Invention in short). 2. Mr. R. Parthasarathy appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Anand represented the respondent. Both the learned counsel, besides arguing the matter at length, have also filed their written submissions on the preliminary issue as well as on merits. Preliminary objections by respondent Locus-standi 3. A Preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent herein questioning the locus-standi of the applicant to move the revocation application as a person interested under S.64 of the Patents Act, 1970.(Act in short) .This question has already been decided against the respondent by this Board in the cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-23-2013
LORD MANCE (with whom Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree) Introduction 1. The issue on this appeal is how a covenant should be construed and understood as applying in a novel legal and accounting context, which was not foreseen or foreseeable - or was, according to uncontradicted expert evidence, "unthinkable" - when the covenant was entered into. 2. The covenant was contained in a Deed agreed and executed in 1997 between the appellant, then known as Lloyds TSB Group plc and now known as Lloyds Banking Group plc (and which I shall for simplicity call "Lloyds Bank"), and the respondent, Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland ("the Foundation"). The 1997 Deed replaced an earlier Deed executed in 1986 and varied by agreement between the parties in 1993. The 1986 Deed was one of four entered into upon the floatation of the TSB Group plc ("TSB") and intended to provide four charitable foundations with payments totalling 1% of the pre-tax profits of the TSB. 3. Under Clause 2 of the 1997 Deed, Ll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-22-2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.713 OF 201.(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9608 OF 2009.LT.CDR.MALKIAT SINGH KHELA (RETD.) APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in W.P. No.307 of 1998, dated 22.07.2008, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.3. The facts in brief are: The appellant is a retired personnel of Indian Navy. He had joined the Indian Navy as Aviation Cadet in October 1971. He was commissioned as Sub-Lieutenant in the Executive Branch (Pilot) on 02.06.1973, thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Commander.4. It has come on record that the appellant had allowed his family friends from Afghanistan to stay in his official residential accommodation from 10.01.1989 to 21.01.1989. This, according to the responden...
Tag this Judgment!