Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC600; RLW2009(2)SC1364; 2008AIRSCW7744; 2008(6)LHSC4251
..... order of acquittal passed by the trial court in sessions trial no. 379 / 1996, whereby, appellants asif mamu and mukhtiyar malik @ javed, besides accused rajiulla khan and sheru @ sher khan nepali [in short 'asif', mukhtiyar', 'rajiulla' and 'sheru', respectively] were acquitted. criminal appeal no. 718 of 2007 arises out of the said common judgment of conviction passed by the high court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2008
Reported in : 149(2008)DLT205; 2008(101)DRJ283
..... at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and at least twenty electors of the constituency as seconders; (c) in the case of a seat reserved for sikkimese of nepali origin, by an elector of the constituency as proposer:provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-17-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC370
..... , shops or persons available near the place of recovery. he denied his knowledge in case there is small house above the place where the accused was arrested or 3-4 nepalis reside near the residence of the accused. pw-1 hhc hem raj has clearly stated that he was sent in search of local and independent witnesses, but he could not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR94; 2009(1)BomCR722; (2008)110BOMLR2471; 2009(1)MhLj215
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Mumbai and claims that he was the President of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association and a social activist, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. While referring to the great leaders of the Nation and the freedom struggle during the British rule prior to 1947, it is contended by the Petitioner that during the crisis the U.S.S.R. was the supporter and Pakistan and U.S. could not succeed in dividing India and/or destroying the economy of India. Referring to the present Government at the Centre as a coalition Government, it is averred by the Petitioner that the economy of the country is progressing and however there is complete confusion, insecurity with regard to the existence and continuation of the Government because of nuclear deal with the U.S. which is being opposed by various parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-15-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT664
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of six writ petitions, claims of one form, or the other, are made in respect of different extents of land, owned by a religious endowment, by name, Seethanna Chalivendram (for short 'the Institution'). Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are as under:One Sri Mallavarapu Seethanna was running a Chalivendram, near Venkatachalam village of Nellore District, to cater to the needs of the travelling public. An extent of Ac.399.70 cents of Kanupuru Bit-1 was endowed to the Chalivendram. While the petitioners in W.P. No. 20720 of 2007 state that the land was endowed by the erstwhile Nawabs of Arcot, according to the petitioners in W.P. No. 19562 of 2007, the endowment was made by Karnataka Nawabs. The land in various bits is said to be under the enjoyment of the petitioners, and their ancestors. The revenue was being collected by Seethan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-22-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1186
B.S. Chauhan and Bharati Sapru, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2007 issued by U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (Annexure-5 to the public interest petition);(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolutions dated 30.04.2005, 27.08.2005 and 28.8.2005 passed in Full Court Meeting of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of this public interest petition).(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide reservation quota for physically handicapped persons in all services including judicial services.In fact the challenge in this petition is to the advertisement dated 22.12.2007 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission to appoint Assistant Prosecution Officers and petitioners are seeking direction that the impugned advertisement be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-05-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Chh22
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity and legality of the notice dated 28-7-2008 (Annex-ure-P/4) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Further challenge is to the reply dated 10-10-2006 (Annexure-P/6) to the legal notice of the petitioners and intimation-cum-letter demanding possession of securities dated 23-10-2006 (Annexure-P/9).2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company, engaged in the business of milling, sorting & trading of rice and related products. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly given financial assets in the shape of packing credit hypothecation limit, foreign bill purchase limit, term loan and foreign letter of cred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-27-2008
Reported in : JT2008(7)SC194; 2008(9)SCALE166; (2008)8SCC781; 2008AIRSCW4618; 2008(3)AICLR651
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively registered against them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad and seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the aforesaid cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation [for short 'the CBI'].3. This case would reveal a chequered history of legal battle being fought by the appellants - the students of Santosh Medical College on one hand and the authorities of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-04-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Raj119
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 Bikaner vide order dated 8-7-2005 decided the issue Nos. 2 to 8 in the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and refused to dismiss the petition of the non-petitioner for grant of maintenance.2. The facts leading to preferring this revision petition by the petitioner husband of the non-petitioner No. 1 and father of the non-petitioner No. 2 are that the marriage of the petitioner with non-petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27-4-1996 at Bikaner. Out of wedlock, one son-non-petitioner No. 2 born. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father was reformist, in favour of simple marriage and was against taking dowry. The petitioner's father was also of the view that the marriage should be solemnized without any show. The non-petitioner No. 1's father approached petitioner's father in the month of April...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Raj38; 2009(1)WLN373
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The facts in brief as pleaded by both the appellants are that both the appellants fell in love with each other and without the consent of their parent entered into wedlock on 26-8-2006 by following the rites of Arya Samaj. They could not live together for a single day (or night) as immediately after their marriage, the fact of marriage of the appellants came in knowledge of their parents and they did not accept this marriage. Because of above fact situation only, the appellants stated that the 'appellants do not want to live together nor they want to continue this marriage relation because they contacted the marriage because of their lack of understanding'. They further pleaded that not only they did not live together for a single day (or night) after marriage, but they did not meet with each other for a single moment after the marriage. With these averments, the appellants, husband and wife filed present petition before the Family Court under Section 138 of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!