Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC472
Surinder Singh, J.1. In the instant petitions, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has raised a common question of law and facts hence taken up together for its decision.2. In brief the facts are; the petitioner herein, made a complaint to the Mining Department that the respondents were indulged in illegal mining by extracting the stones from his land and also from the Government land. On enquiry the Mining Officer found substance in the complaint, thus he being the authorized officer, filed three separate complaints against each of the accused-respondent, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, under Section 21(2) of the Mines & Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The trial Court issued the summons, which were not served but the bailable warrants were served for their presence on 21.12.2002. The accused-respondents did not put in appearance on 21.12.2002. However, the trial Court passed the following order in all the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC265
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Judgment Debtors against the order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the learned executing Court in an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been filed in the review petition preferred by the petitioner herein.2. The application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the Judgment Debtors Arvind Kohli and Amit Kohli (petitioners herein) praying that correction be made in the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Decree Holder. The learned Court holds that not only is the application vague, but the application for amendment of the decree does not show as to what the applicants-Judgment Debtors want. The first two paragraphs of the judgment hold:This order disposes of an application under Sections 151, 152 C.P.C. The pleadings as contained in paras 1 to 5 and also in the prayer clause are vague. The prayer clause is reproduced below:It is, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC91
Surjit Singh, J.1. The case has a chequered history. Respondent Bhupesh Kumar was challaned, under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code, for allegedly murdering Poonam Sharma and making an attempt on the lives of two other persons named Vivek and Raj Kumar.2. It appears that when the case was filed in the Magisterial Court, a question was raised that the respondent was not capable of defending himself owing to un-soundness of mind. The Magistrate, without making inquiry into the question in accordance with the provision of Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court charged the accused-respondent with the aforesaid offences and examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution. When the respondent was sought to be examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he gave answers (to the questions put by the Court) which were irrelevant. The Sessions Court then made an observation that the respondent appeared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-08-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC435
Surjit Singh, J.1. State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby respondents Balvinder Kaur and Saravjit Singh and another person named Ravinder Singh, since deceased, have been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to murder, murder and destruction of evidence of murder with a view to screening the offenders. So it has filed the present appeal.2. Facts, as they emerge from the prosecution evidence may be stated thus: Deceased Surjit Singh was employed as a Constable with Punjab Police. In the year 1987, his wife died. He was thereafter transferred to Mohali. He started living in the neighborhood of respondent Balvinder Kaur. Deceased and respondent Balvinder Kaur developed illicit relations. Deceased rented some accommodation at Dharampur in the building of Raj Kumar (PW 3) in July, 1990 and occupied the same on 5-9-1990. Respondent Balvinder Kaur accompanied him. A son of the deceased aged about, eight years, named Chhapinder Singh alias Soni (PW 14) was also with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ20
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Contempt Court is justified in determining on what price the proprietory rights are to be conferred upon the petitioners2. The learned Single Judge who heard the contempt case has passed an interim order on December 16,. 2004 which is as good as a final order holding that the respondents (contemnors) cannot demand more than Rs. 2 lacs per kanal to transfer the proprietory rights in favour of the petitioners.3. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officers have come up with this appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Judge in the contempt proceedings, contending that Contempt Court has no jurisdiction to determine the amount to be paid by the petitioners for transfer of proprietary rights.4. Writ petition No. 933/95 was preferred by the petitioners (respondents herein) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the leased land measuring 6 kanal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ354
Nirmal Singh, J.1. Petitioner who came to be enrolled in the Army on 4th of October, 1978, was discharged from service on 21st of August, 1981, on compassionate grounds at the request made by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 31st of May'82, and served upto 1987, when he suffered from intense pain in the head and applied for medical leave which was granted to him. Before the petitioner could recover and join back his duties, he received a communication dated 25th of May'88, from the respondents that the petitioner has been discharged from service on medical grounds. Petitioner thereafter applied to respondents for grant of disability pension, which was rejected. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2012/01, which was disposed of vide judgment dt. 27th of March02.2. The case of the petitioner is that after the writ petition aforementioned was allowed by this Court, the respondents implemented the judgment and released service as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Mar-19-2008
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Honble Shri Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member: 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad dated 31st July, 2006. The appeal was taken up for hearing in the Circuit Bench Sitting at Ahmedabad on 21st February, 2008. 2. The appellant is one of the most reputed and the largest manufacturers of automobiles and auto parts in the world. Its business operations are spread in as many as 186 countries including 22 countries in Asia. The appellant is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing automobiles and auto parts. It adopted the mark NISSAN as a prominent part of its corporate identity and as its main trade mark on or about 1933. The mark NISSAN is a part of the corporate identity and trading style of all its subsidiaries and affiliate companies throughout the world. 3. The appellant employs approximately 183,607 employees worldwide and recorded annual sales for the financial year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-07-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR141(SC)]; 2008(9)SCALE630; (2008)7SCC334; 2008AIRSCW5261; 2008(7)SCC334; (2008)3SCC(Cri)94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court dismissing the MAC Appeal No. 219/07 and order dismissing the application for review.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No. DL 3S 7420 was involved. According to the respondent the accident occurred on 2.8.1995 at 11.20 a.m. He sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 57,635/- alongwith 6% interest thereon. Appellant was impleaded in the claim petition as the sole respondent. Stand of the appellant was that his vehicle was not offending vehicle and in any event he was not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate issued by his employer which clearly indicated that at the relevant point of time he was wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on : Feb-20-2008
Reported in : (2008)10STR374
1. Vide the impugned orders, the authorities below have confirmed the service tax of Rs. 7,08,791/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of personal penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. The said tax stands confirmed against the appellant who has provided services as coaching and educational training. The appellant was holding registration for providing of said services. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the period April, 2003 to September, 2003, in respect of the advance fees collected by the appellants prior to 1-7-2003, when the said services were made leviable to tax. The Revenue's contention is that though the fees for the said services were received prior to 1-7-2003, inasmuch as services were provided after 1-7-2003, the appellant would be liable to pay tax on pro rata basis for the period subsequent to 1-7-2003.Apart from arguing on merits demand has also been assailed on the point of limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) accepts that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-18-2008
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!