Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-24-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 385 OF2013With L.P.A No. 386 OF2013--- ACC Limited, a company incorporated under the provision of Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its Registered Office at 121 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 and having its works at Chaibasa Cememt Works, Jhinkpani, P.O. - Jhinkpani, P.S. Tonto, District Singhbhum West and Sindri Cement Works, District Dhanbad through Mr. Arun Kumar Saxena, Director Plant, Chaibasa Cement Works, ACC Limited. ... Appellant (in both cases) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.(in both cases) 2. The Director of Industries, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House Complex, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi.(in both cases) 3. Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Department of Revenues, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.- Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. (in both cases) 4. Secre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is being disposed of finally. 2. In each of these cases, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (said Act) are pending before Mr. E. Rajshekhar, Estate Officer, the respondent no.2 herein. The petitioners have however invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, mainly urging the following:- a) That the petitioners being pre-nationalisation tenants / occupants of the suit premises, cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the said Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Estate Officer (AIR 2014 SC 1509); b) That Mr. E. Rajshekhar, the Estate Manager had himself recommended the action of eviction against the petitioners and even proposed a line of action to secure the same. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehensi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, preferred the Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2011. The trial Court convicted the appellants accused No.1 Shivaji s/o. Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o. Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code, and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years. The appellants original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, original accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, and original accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 375/2014 % MANJU DEVI Through Reserved on:11. h February, 2015 Decided on:23. d February, 2015 ..... Petitioner Mr.J.K. Jain, Adv. versus PARTAP SINGH Through ..... Respondent Mr. S.L. Sharma, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th September, 2014 whereby the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.2. In the eviction petition, the petitioner claimed that the suit property being 48/29, Anand Parbat, multi-storied building was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 3rd March, 2008. At the time of the purchase of the property the respondent was a tenant in respect of a shop on the ground floor which had been let out by the erstwhile owner @ `200/- per month. After the petitioner purchased the property, the respondent started pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2113 of 2014 1. Satyakinkar Ghosh , son of late Bhawani Shankar Ghosh, resident of village and PO Vamdol, PS Bahragora, Dist. East Singhbhum 2. Shashank Shekhar Bhui, son of late Haricharan Bhui, resident of village PO and PS Baharagora, Dist. East Singhbhum 3. Janki Nath Singh, son of late Surendra Nath Singh, resident of village- Raspal, PO Balibandh, PS Chakulia, Dist. East Singhbhum 4. Yamini Kant Bera, Son of Late Nagendra Nath Bera, resident of village Chalunia, PO Kendadangri, Ps Chakulia, Dist. East Singhbhum 5. Vinapani Mahto, W/o Late Yugal Chandra Mahto, resident of village and PO Matiyabanghi, PS Chakulia, Dist. East Singhbhum 6. Bhudhar Chandra Mahto, son of late Yugal Chandra Mahto, village Borasholi, PO Baliagudi, PS Chakulia, Dist East Singhbhum 7. Motilal Saw, son of late Guhi Ram Saw, resident of village and PO Darkhuli, PS Badshol, Dist. East Singhbhum 8. Bighneshwar Lenka, son of Late Govind Charan Lenka, village a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23. d February, 2015 +CRL.A. 881/2012 RUNCHE DAMAI alias BHIM BAHADUR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Vivek Sood with Mr.Rakesh Sharma, Mr.Prem Prakash and Mr.S.Kukreja, Advs. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.O.P.Saxena, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Who is a father?. A father is an essential component of the family, which, in turn, has been acknowledged as one of the most important units of society, in relation to the wellbeing and especially the nurturing and protection of children. We should never lose sight of the fact that a father derives his position and power from cultural prescriptions of manhood. Being a man and a father meant being able to exercise self-restraint. This entailed, among other things, not resorting to violence especially against women. Abusing women is regarded as a cowardly act and men who engaged in such practices should be excluded socia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th May, 1995, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1994, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts projected from police report leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused can be summarized thus:- [a] Respondent/accused Nina Tadas, is cousin uncle of Gajanan Pandurang Tadas (since deceased). According to prosecution case, there was a dispute between the family of Gajanan Tadas and respondent/accused Nina, over open land situated nearby their house leading to the filing of civil suit by Pandurang Shankar Tadas (PW-2) father of deceased Gajanan. [b] The incident in question allegedly happened on 5.9.1994 at village Harankhkeda, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, where the parties were residing. It was day of 'POLA' festi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-20-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:20. 10.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.3149 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli. ... Revision Petitioner/ Proposed respondent/ Proposed respondent vs. 1.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Jayamkondam Lignite Power Project, Jayamkondam. 2.Govindasamy. 3.The Executive Director, TIDCO, Chennai. ... Respondents/ Petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2/ Referring Officer, claimant and respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 27.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.353 of 2008 in L.A.O.P.No.301 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge No.I (Sub Judge), Jayamkondam. For Petitioner : M/s.N.A.K.Sharma and N.Nithianandam. ----- ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the proposed respondent challenging the order and decreetal order dated 27.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.353 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 23/12/2014 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the learned Judge has ruled that the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is not barred in view of Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus: The Respondent No.1 herein is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the object of the Union is to organize and unite the civilian employees of the naval establishment in Mumbai and regulate their relation with the employer i.e. the naval establishment in Mumbai. The Respondent No.2 is a person who claims to be the President of the Respondent No.1 Union. The Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-20-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (PIL) No. 4715 OF2013Court On Its Own Motion Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others WITH W.P (PIL) No. 6822 OF2013Mridushila Murmu wife of Sikandar Tudu r/o village Bhetatola PO & PS Maheshpur District Pakuar Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Health Medical Education & Family Member at Nepal House, PO & PS Doranda, Distt. Ranchi 3.The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand at Namkum, PO & PS Namkum, Distt. Ranchi 4.The Mission Director, NRHM at Namkum PO & PS Namkum, Distt. Ranchi 5.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Pakur, PO PS & Distt. Pakur 6.The Dy. Commissioner, Pakur, PO PS & Distt. Pakur 7.Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH --- For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.Sumeet Gadodia, Amicus Curiae (In W.P (PIL) No. 4715/2013) For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.K.K.O...
Tag this Judgment!