Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF MARCH201421ST PHALGUNA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 1586 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 516/2013 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT ------------------ PETITIONERS : ---------------------- 1. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE S/O. ALAVIKKUTTY, AGED43YEARS PANJIKKADAN HOUSE, CHELLANKODE POST CLUBMOTTAM, VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT.2. NOUFAL S/O. YOUSUF,CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, AGED27YEARS, CHELLANKODE POST CHITRAGIRI, VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT.3. ABDUL SALEEM S/O. NAINAR MUSSALIAR, MANJAPAKKIL HOUSE AGED26YEARS, VADUVANCHAL POST, MENON MUKKU, WAYANAD DISTRICT.4. ANOOP S/O. RAGHAVAN, KIZHINJALIL HOUSE, AGED38YEARS, KADALMADU POST NADUMMULLY, VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT : ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AMBALAVAYAL, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3461 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision:12.3.2014 Ramesh Lal @ Ramesh Kumar & anr......Appellant(s) Versus Parmeshwari Devi & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.1,2 & 2A. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) Defendants No.2 and 3 are in appeal before this Court against the judgments and decrees dated 19.3.2009 of the trial Court as well as dated 18.9.2009 of the FiRs.Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondents for declaration was decreed. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondents vide CM No.10844-C of 2013 have placed on record a compromise dated 10.4.2013 effected between the parties as well as an affidavit of appellant No.2-Vijay Kumar dated 10.4.2013 showing that a compromise has been effected between the parties and as per the aforesaid compromise, the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
1. Appellants Rampal, Moni Sharma, Satis and Somdutt have assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.7.2002 rendered against them by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 284/95, State v. Rampal and 3 Others. The said trial pertains to Police Station Gangnahar, Crime No. 113/95. All these accused persons were tried for the offences of Section 452, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Trial culminated into their conviction for the offences of Section 452 and 307/34 IPC. They have been appropriately sentenced by the Trial Judge. 2. The backdrop of the prosecution version as disclosed in the FIR is that Rampal Kashyap, resident of Nayi Basti, Shyam Nagar, Roorkee intruded in the house of injured Mulkraj along with his some companions. They started to beat Mulkraj. Seeing the occurrence, his daughter Ms. Geeta Saini (informant) and his father raised alarm. Meanwhile, Rampal Kashyap stabbed the knife blow in the abdomen of her father while his other companion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the respondent No.1 of WP(C) No.1952/2009 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein and issued a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the appellant (respondent No.1 of writ petition) which reads as under: No other issue survives for consideration. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 9-2-2009 (Annexure-IX) and 20-2-2009 (Annexure-XIII) issued by the respondents No.2 are hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioner in respect of the Insurance Policy No.321100/48/2009/836 and settle the same in accordance with law. No costs. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this intra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-2014
$~R-130 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5548/2003 MADAN SINGH BISHTA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Pradeep Desodiya, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The charge at which petitioner, working as a Constable with BSF, was tried at a General Security Force Court was for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in that, near village Thana Basti, PS : Khowai, District Tripura (West) on June 25, 1999 around 19:30 hours he caused the death of Sh.Lalit Deb Barma by firing a shot from his 7.62 mm SLR Butt No.325, Registration No.BC-9989.2. The finding of the Court is that the petitioner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence imposed is to undergo RI for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-11-2014
CWP No.16724 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.16724 of 2011 Date of Decision: 11.03.2014 Sunita Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Amit Kumar, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 10, 12, 15 to 20, 22 and 25 to 31. Mr.Gourav Jain, Advocate for respondents No.11, 14, 21 and 24. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. An advertisement was published for inviting applications of 29 posts of Sanitary Inspectors under various municipal committees by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (here-in-after referred to as `the Commission).wherein, the essential qualification was Matric with Diploma in Sanitary Inspector and Hindi or Sanskrit up to Matric standard. The age prescribed for the said post was between 17 to 40 yeaRs.It was also mentioned that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-11-2014
Chan Wei Sern, Paul AR: 1. The plaintiff is a Singapore citizen who for many years carried on business activities in Malaysia. As a result of unsatisfied personal guarantees which he issued in favour of Malaysian companies, two separate judgments were rendered against the plaintiff by the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The rights to these judgments were subsequently transferred to the first defendant. On the basis of one of these judgments, the 1st defendant petitioned for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Malaysia. On the basis of the other, the 1st defendant applied for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Singapore. On both counts, the 1st defendant was successful and the plaintiff was declared a bankrupt in Malaysia and Singapore in turn. In respect of the Singapore bankruptcy, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were appointed as private trustees to act in place of the Official Assignee. 2. The plaintiff now seeks to annul the Singapore bankruptcy order. To persu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-10-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:10. 03.2014 + ITA672001 M/S COMFORT LIVING HOTELS P. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar with Mr. Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Pabitra Roy Choudhary, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The following questions of law arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5 lacs was capital in nature and was not revenue expenditure that could properly be deducted?. (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation was allowable on a sum of Rs.3,59,803/claimed as expenditure on temporary constructions?.2. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee was carrying on hospitality business, i.e., managing a hotel. It had claimed during the relevant time in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h March, 2014 + CRL.A. 1345/2011 MOHD. SHAHID KHAN @ RAJA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20 th April, 2011 and order on sentence dated 2nd May, 2011 passed in Sessions Case No.77/2009 in case FIR No.109/2009, PS Kapashera whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for four months.2. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 17 th May, 2009, on receipt of a call regarding murder of a male aged about 2025 years at Gali No.8, Kapashera near Govt. Garbage House, near White Flats, New Delhi, PW13, W Constable Sudesh filled the PCR form...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Tag this Judgment!