Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-29-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4000
Sham Sunder, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the Crl. Appeal No. 109- SB of 1996 filed by Narayan Dass, Crl. Appeal No. 341-SB of 1996 filed by Mohan Lal and Crl. Revision No. 219 of 2006, filed by Som Parkash, complainant arising out of the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 5.2.1996 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which it convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as also Kashmir Singh, co-accused as under:Name of Convicted for Sentencethe convict the offence awardedNarayan Dass Under Section 364 read Rl for a period ofwith Section 120-B, IPC 5 years and to paya fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of pay-ment of fine to fur-ther undergo RI fora period of sixmonths.Under Section 365 read RI for a period ofwith Section 120-B, IPC 3 yearsUnder Section 368 read RI for a period ofwith Section 120-B, IPC 2 yearsMohanLal Under Section 364 read RI for a period ofwith Section 120-B IPC 5 years and to paya fine of Rs. 1,000/-in def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
Reported in : II(2008)DMC596
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.1. By this common judgment, two criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1997 preferred by Shunti @ Raja, Om Parkash and Rajni and Criminal Appeal No. 865-SB of 1997 preferred by Om Parkash son of Narpat Ram will be decided.2. By the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, all these four accused i.e. appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 306, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. FIR Ex. PK was lodged at the instance of Smt. Darshana Devi P.W. 1. She has stated in the FIR that she has got six sons and two daughters. His eldest son is Uttam Chand and younger to him is Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was married with Rajni, appellant, about three years before the occurrence in Kalyan Nagar, Jagadhari. It is stated that from the marriage two daughters and one son was born. She further sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas267(P& H)
Permod Kohli, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order dated August 1, 2006 (Vijay Kumar Chopra v. Smt. Sudershan Chopra [2007] 140 Comp Cas 1), passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at New Delhi. It is relevant to briefly notice the factual background of the case (facts are being noticed from Company Appeal No. 21).2. The parties to the present appeals are shareholders and directors on the board of the company, namely, 'Hind Samachar Ltd.', a closely held company incorporated in August, 1949, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company has its registered office at Hind Samachar Buildings, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and branches at other places. The company is engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers, journals, magazines, books, etc., in Urdu, English, Hindi and Punjabi. One of its famous publications is Urdu daily newspaper 'Hind Samachar'. The company was initially formed by late Lala Jagat Narain, a renowned journalist of his time who was father of app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : AIR2009P& H73; (2009)153PLR469
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that in case a testator bequeaths his property jointly to two lineal descendants by way of a Will and if one of the legatees dies during the life time of the testator, whether the bequeathed property would be taken away by other surviving legatee in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') or if the legatee dies during the life time of the testator leaving behind his mother as Class-I heir and has no lineal descendant, should the mother take the share of that legatee in view of Section 109 of the Act and whether mother is a lineal descendant.2. The facts firstThe appellant is the mother-in-law of respondent Bhupinder Kaur;Kartar Singh (deceased) had two sons called Ujjagar Singh and Saudagar Singh. Ujjagar Singh had a wife Surjit Kaur and two sons Harinder Singh and Avtar Singh. Harinder Singh had a wife Bhupinder Kaur and a minor son Amritpal Singh, whereas Avtar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-2008
Reported in : (2009)3PLR598
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gidderbaha allowing an application moved by the defendant respondent under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC to treat the question of jurisdiction to be preliminary issue.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the pleadings of the parties the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided without allowing the parties to lead evidence, therefore, the Court could not treat it as preliminary issue.3. The reading of Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC can only lead to the conclusion that it is only pure question of law which can be treated as preliminary issue but when the question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence then it has to be treated as mixed question of law and fact and cannot be treated as preliminary issue and is to be decided along with the other issues.4. In support of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2035
Jitendra Chauhan, J.1. On 13-6-1997 Sahun, the appellant, was summoned for trial for offence under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon Sahina aged about 6/7 years. The trial Court on 11-11-1998 held the appellant guilty of the offence charged, and vide order dated 13-11-1998 the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11/13-11-1998 11/13-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.3. On 20-2-1997, Jabbar Khan son of Khillu got his statement recorded before Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Police Post Bichhore that at about 9.00 a.m. when he came back from his field, his daughter Sahina, was found crying. Sahina told the complainant that Sahun son of Ismail took her to the fields of mustard cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-29-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1126; 2008CriLJ1610; JT2008(2)SC41; 2008(I)OLR(SC)502; 2008(2)SCALE108; (2008)3SCC753; 2008(1)ShimLC115; 2008AIRSCW1003; 2008(1)AICLR742; 2008(2)LH(SC)942; 2008(2)KCCRSN101; 2008(2)AIRKarR415
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 1535 of 2006 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash cognizance of offence under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III.3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. Suffice it to say that an unfortunate incident had occurred on 13th December, 2005 in which late Smt. Pratibha Srikant Murthy was stated to have been murdered on her way to work from her residence. Pursuant to the aforesaid incident a complaint was filed on 27th December, 2005 against the appellant alleging violation of Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Act be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1290; 2008BusLR335(SC); (2008)2MLJ1140(SC); 2008(3)SCALE24; (2008)4SCC380; [2008]82SCL435(SC); 2008(1)LC339(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Both these appeals have been instituted against common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Side) dated February 20/21, 2006 in Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2005 in Company Petition No. 857 of 2004. First appeal has been filed by Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. while the second appeal is filed by Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in brief as noted by the Division Bench of the High Court are as follows. 4. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as "Severn Trent") filed a petition for winding up the Capital Controls (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on just and equitable grounds under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Company Judge by his order dated 21st April 2005 admitted the company petition. Aggrieved thereby two appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1797; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)827; [2008]143CompCas176(SC); [2008(3)JCR142(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC183; 2008(4)KarLJ56; (2008)5MLJ713(SC); 2008(4)SCALE473; (2008)5SCC176; 2008(3)CivilLJ896; 2008(3)AIRKarR280; 2008AIRSCW2480
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION1. Interpretation of Section 29 vis-`a-vis Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 37209 & 37907 of 2000, 24452 of 2001, 13354 and 16614 of 2002.FACTUAL BACKDROP2. Respondents herein furnished sureties and/ or guarantees in respect of the loans taken by the industrial concerns (Respondent - Company) We may notice the fact of the matter from the case of AP Rocks Private Limited (Writ Petition No. 37209 and 30907 of 2000) before the High Court. AP Rocks Private Limited is an industrial concern. It approached the appellant - Corporation for grant of loan in the form of non-convertible debenture facility to the extent of 100 lakhs to meet its working capital requirements. 3. Respondents who were Directors of Company executed deeds of guarantee dated 15.05.1996 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!