Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-10-2015
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.3980of2015 SPMLInfraLimited,acompanyincorporatedundertheprovisionsof theCompaniesAct,1956andhavingitsregisteredofficeatF27/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase2 New Delhi 110020 through its SeniorExecutiveBusinessDevelopment,Mr.ManishSharma,sonof Mr.ShankarLalSharma,residingat5/2,BamaCharanRoyRoad, Kolkata700034,P.O.Senhati,P.S.Behala,DistrictBehala Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Government of Jharkhand Enterprises, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Pin834004 (Jharkhand) 2. The Chief Engineer (Transmission), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Pin834004 (Jharkhand) 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, State of Jharkhand, havingitsofficeat,NepalHouse,Doranda,Ranchi834001 ... ... Respondents CO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-07-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION1CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1263 OF2011Maya Devi & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent(s) 2 3 JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.488-DB of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.2) Brief facts: (a) As per the prosecution story, the marriage of Kavita @ Kusum (since deceased) was solemnized with Karamvir, son of Mahavir, resident of House No.36, Type II, M.D. University Campus, Rohtak according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17.07.1994. After 20-25 days of the solemnization of the marriage, Karamvir (appellant No.2 herein), his mother Maya Devi (appellant No.1 herein), brothers Dharamveer and Paramveer and Sister Sonika@Pinki started harassing, maltreating and beating Kavita (since deceased) on account of dowry. Des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-04-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2011 Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad son of late Maheshwari Prasad, resident of Road No.1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi .... .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi .... . Respondents --------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ---------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Saurabh Arun & Abhishek Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, J.C. to G.P.IV. ----------- th CAV on:29 October, 2015 Pronounced on 04/12/2015 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the respondent no.2 wherein respondent no.2 has taken a decision that petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity.2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2015
Oral: 1. The Supreme Court in Sidhartha Vashisth alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2010) 6 SCC 1 commenting on the necessity of insisting upon the fairness of investigation observed at paragraph 197 of the report:- 197. ......The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ? 2. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and Others reported as (2009) 1 SCC 441 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fairness of the investigation is meant not only for the accused but even for the victim. In paragraph 28 of the report the Supreme Court expounded:- 28. An accused is entitled to a fair inve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-2015
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 15.09.2010 passed by Sh. Sanjiv Jain, Special Judge, NDPS in S.C. No. N-48/08, convicting Appellant Chand Singh, Appellant Jasbir Singh and Appellant Narender Singh Jakhar for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) C and Section 29 read with Section 20 (b) (ii) C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Act') and the order on sentence dated 17.09.2010, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) C of the Act. Further they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 20 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. Ram Asre, son of Baijnath ( the victim ?), aged about 22 years, resident of jhuggi no. N-116 (also N-23), Indira Vikas Colony, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Mukherjee Nagar ( the police station ?) suffered homicidal death, on account of stab injuries, received in an incident that took place at about 09:30 PM on 21.03.1997 in front of jhuggi no.A-105 (N-15) in the same slum settlement. The case registered by the police (FIR No.147/1997) resulted in report of investigation (dated 28.06.1997) under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") being submitted. On its basis, the appellants herein were brought to trial in sessions case no.194/1997 on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ?). The appellant Munna Lal ( the first accused ?) was also tried on the additional charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation that he had used a dagger in the commission of offence of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-27-2015
Common Judgment: (C. Praveen Kumar, J.) Disagreeing with the view expressed in W.P.No.5347 of 2014 another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24.07.2014 in W.P.Nos.17589 and 17625 of 2014 referred the following question to be decided by a Full Bench. In terms of the said order of reference, these Writ Petitions are posted before us to answer the question framed in the order of reference, which is as under : Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction in Corporation area can assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset and pass an order in favour of secured creditor for the purpose of taking possession or control of any secured asset? ? Taking Writ Petition No.17589 of 2014 as a lead petition, we proceed to decide the reference. An application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act ?) came to be filed by a Secured Credito...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-26-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.347 of 2014 ------------ Nepal Kumbhakar, Son of Jagadish Kumbhakar Resident of Asahanbani, P.O.-Chandra, P.S.-Chandankiyari District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kiran Devi, Daughter of Sri Rohan Rajwar, Resident of Asahanbani, P.O.-Chandra, P.S.-Chandankiyari District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Parties ------------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate ------------ C.A.V. ON:26. 08.2015 PRONOUNCED ON:- 26.11.2015 Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in S.T. No.220 of 2013 arising out of Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.149 of 2012 instituted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-26-2015
:1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS:35011. 35012 OF2015(KLR-RES) BETWEEN: PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS (BY. SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.,) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & OTHERS (BY GOVT. ADVOCATE & OTHER ADVOCATES) RESPONDENTS THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON I.As. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :2. : RMRJ:26. 11.2015 WP NOS.35011-12/2015 ORDER On 30.10.2015 the following order was passed : Today is a sad day in the history of State of Karnataka, City of Bangalore and India, in particular. The 7th respondent, represented by its President without awaiting a decision of this Court approached the press expressing apparent bias, apprehension that justice would not be done in a fair and unprejudiced manner and unwarranted allegations against the Court and the Presiding Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Decided on : Nov-26-2015
Sunil Kumar Sinha, C.J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2013 passed by the District Judge, Special Division-II, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit No. 13 of 2012. 2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the suit filed by the Plaintiff has been decreed, therefore, the Defendants have filed this Appeal. 3. Brief facts necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as under: - 3.1 Bhaktay Gurung, was having two sons, namely, Ganja Bahadur Gurung and Nirmal Gurung (Plaintiff). Bhaktay Gurung died in the year 1965 and Ganja Bahadur Gurung died in the year 1977. Defendants 1 to 8 are sons of late Ganja Bahadur Gurung and Defendant No. 9 is his second wife. Defendant No. 6, Jiwan Gurung, died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by Defendants 6, 10 and 11. Bhaktay Gurung was the absolute owner of the suit lands described in Schedule A of the plaint. 3.2 Eight sons of Ganja Bahadur Gurung, who were Defendants 1 to 8 herein, had filed an ea...
Tag this Judgment!