Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORP. v. HOEPER certiorari to the supreme court of colorado No. 12315.Argued December 9, 2013Decided January 27, 2014 Respondent Hoeper was a pilot for petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. When Air Wisconsin stopped flying from Hoepers home base on aircraft that he was certified to fly, he needed to become certified on a different type of aircraft to keep his job. After Hoeper failed in his first three attempts to gain certification, Air Wisconsin agreed to give him a fourth and final chance. But he performed poorly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :21.01.2014. Judgment delivered on:- 27.01.2014. CRL.A. 34/2006 SHIKSHA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Daya Kishan. CRL.A. 128/2006 SANJEEV TYAGI @ CHIDDI BOSE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Daya Kishan. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellants before this Court are a mother and son. Shiksha is the mother and Sanjeev is her son. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2005 wherein they had been convicted under Sections 307/325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Sanjeev Tyagi had been convicted separately under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Vide order of sentence dated 24.12.2005, each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 Date of decision: 27.1.2014 Kala and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent AND Crl. Appeal No.D-252-DB of 2009 Date of decision: 27.1.2014 Jeet Ram alias Jeeta .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Simrandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Addl.AG Haryana. Kuldip Singh, J. By this judgment, we will dispose of two Criminal Appeals Kumari Meenu 2014.02.11 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 -2- No.D-202-DB of 2009 titled as Kala and another versus State of Haryana and No.D-252-DB of 2009 titled as Jeet Ram alias Jeeta versus State of Haryana. The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 29.8.2005, Ashok ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.383/1998 Reserved on:10. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2014 % CHANDER PAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.450/1998 ANGREJ SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. L.K. Passi, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The appellants Chander Pal Singh and Angrej Singh by the impugned judgment dated 19th August, 1998 stand convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Harvinder Kataria on 13th May, 1994 at about 9.30 P.M. According to the prosecution, Chander Pal Singh had inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased with a kripan, while Angrej Singh, the conductor restrained h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL3241998 Reserved on:9. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2014 % RESHAM SINGH .... Appellant Through Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE . Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with SI Sammarpal Singh, P.S Kalkaji. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Resham Singh by the impugned judgment dated 18 th July, 1998 stands convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By impugned order of sentence dated 20th July, 1998, he has been convicted for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment Crl. A. 324/1998 for three Section 394 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: January 21, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 24, 2014 W.P.(C) 6418/2001 OMKAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LRS .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Vaneessa Singh, Advocate with Ms.Sadhvi Shashi, Advocate W.P.(C) 6419/2001 BRAHAM PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate with Mr.Vineet Tayal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the two above captioned writ petitions, they were heard together and hence are being decided by a singular order. Albeit pursuant to two separate charge sheets issued to them and inquiry proceedings being separate, the indictment against the petitioners and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: January 21, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 24, 2014 W.P.(C) 6418/2001 OMKAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LRS .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Vaneessa Singh, Advocate with Ms.Sadhvi Shashi, Advocate W.P.(C) 6419/2001 BRAHAM PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate with Mr.Vineet Tayal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the two above captioned writ petitions, they were heard together and hence are being decided by a singular order. Albeit pursuant to two separate charge sheets issued to them and inquiry proceedings being separate, the indictment against the petitioners and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 WA.No. 1776 of 2009 IN WP(C).36160/2003 -------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36160/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2403-2009 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: - --------------------------------------- S.VILASINI,AGED53YEARS, W/O.K.PAKYANATHAN NADAR, KAP VANAJA BHAVAN, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: - ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATINKARA.4. THE MANAGER, KARAKODE U.P.SCHOOL, PARASSALA.5. CRISTABA JAYANTHI, HINDI TEACHER, KARAKODE UP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.No.35253 of 2013 Kongu Nadu Vettuva Gounder Elaingar Nala Sangam (Tamil Nadu) Reg. No.346/2013 Rep. by its General Secretary K.S.Raj Gounder @ S.Rajkumar S/o.Sadhasivam, No.28, Karuthipalayam Thamaraipalayam Post, Erode District. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Inspector General of Police West Zone, Coimbatore.2. The District Collector, Namakkal District.3. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.4. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.5. The Inspector of Police Pallipalayam Police Station, Pallipalayam, Namakkal District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to make vide publicity by way of putting up the flex board, making publicity through mike set in all over Namakkal, Karur, Erode, Salem, Coimbatore, Dindigul a...
Tag this Judgment!