Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-16-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.6715 of 2011, 30882 of 2011, 22838 of 2011, 27628 of 2011, 17476 of 2009, 9326 of 2009, & 15042 of 2009 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------(In W.P.(C) No.6715 of 2011) Sachalabala Sethy and Ors. Petitioners Opp. Parties -VersusChief Secretary and Chief Development Commission, Orissa and others For Petitioners : Mr.Trilochan Barik For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Advocate General (For O.P.Nos.1 to5) Mr. S.K.Padhi, Sr. Advocate M/s.M.Padhi, A.Dash, B.Panigrahi, S.B.Dash, S.S.Mohanty & H.K.Panigrahi (For O.P. No.6) (In W.P.(C) No.30882 of 2011) Budhi Bewa and Ors. -VersusCommissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Odisha and others Petitioners Opp. Parties For Petitioners : Mr.Trilochan Barik For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Advocate General (For O.P.Nos.1 to3) M/s. H.K.Panigrahi, B.K.Das & N.Tripathy (For O.P. No.4) 2 Mr.J.Pattnaik, Sr. Advocate M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
Criminal Misc.No.M-35 of 2014 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-35 of 2014 Date of Decision: 18th February, 2014 Bajrang Saini .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Nipun Vashist, Advocate, for the complainant. *** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Bajrang Saini who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.446, dated 09.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari. Learned counsel contends that a money transaction has been given shape of a criminal case. According to the prosecution, Nepal Singh was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and his Co.accused but on the date of alleged occurrence, the police of Kotputli (Rajasthan) recorded the state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
CRA-380-DB-2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-380-DB-2009 Date of decision:April 25, 2014 Mohan Pal @ Monu and another ... Appellants Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Manjri Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Jaspal Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Mohan Pal @ Monu and Raj Singh @ Raju feeling dissatisfied against the judgment of conviction dated April 4, 2009 and order of sentence dated April 7, 2009 whereby they have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by Jeena wife of Ramesh Kumar resident of Railway Colony, Amritsar, while getting her statement recorded with SI Jagatpreet Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-08-2014
Ashok Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No.48250/2013, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are: The petitioner no.1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has been carrying out its activities since 1995. The petitioners' company suffered heavy losses in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-2010. A reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1985") was made by the petitioners Company before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the "BIFR") in the Month of October, 2010. The reference was registered as BIFR Case No. 53/2010. The Board proceeded with the reference and called for certain informations and in its proceedings da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-30-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:30. 01.2014 + Crl.Appeal No.392/2010 JAI YODHAD Through: .Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Prateek, Advs. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 8.7.2008, SI Sunil Jain of Narcotic Branch received secret information that a person named Jai, resident of Nepal, who is engaged in bringing Ganja from Nepal to Delhi and selling the same, in association with one Norbu, will meet Norbu between 6.30 pm to 7 pm on that date at Railway Crossing, Shalimar Village and a huge quantity of Ganja would be supplied. The aforesaid information was brought by SI Sunil Jain to the notice of Inspector M.L. Sharma of Narcotic Branch and he also produced the informer before him. After making inquiries from the informer, Inspector M.L. Sharma brought the information to the notice of the concerned ACP Mr. M.S. Dabas on telephone. The said ACP directed him to conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1049 of 2013 25-2-2014 Poonam Agarwal, W/o.Sri Neeraj Agarwal... Appellant./Petitioner/Plaintiff Neeraj Agarwal, S/o. Sri shyam Sunder Agarwal And others... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Damodar Mundra Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4: --- Counsel for the respondent No.5 : Mr.Deepak Bhattacharjee HEAD NOTE: ?. CASES REFERRED:1. 2003 (3) ALLD3692) 2001 (1) ALT739(D.B) 3) (2004) 4 SCC3114) AIR1955Mad 135 5) (1859) 7 WR213 at p.249 6) (2011) 2 SCC7827) AIR2014SC3718) (1995) 5 SCC5459) 1990 (Supp) SCC72710) (2013) 9 SCC221THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1049 OF2013JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Sunil Chowdary) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 29.10.2013 in I.A.No.737 of 2011 in O.P.No.1153 of 2011 on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-16-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 9384 of 2012, 30369 of 2011, 3926 of 2010 & W.A. No.321 of 2011 _______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of an applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India & Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. -------------(In W.P.(C) No.9384 of 2012) Charidesa Krusak Surakhya Sangha and another Petitioners Opp. Parties -VersusState of Orissa and others For Petitioners : M/s. Jayant Das, Sr. Advocate S.N.Sarkar, B.K.Jena For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Advocate General (For O.P.Nos.1, 3, 4 and5) Mr. S.D.Das, Asst. Solicitor General (For O.P. No.2) M/s.Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Advocate Milan Kanungo, Sr. Advocate and Mr.S.Das (For O.P. No.6) (In W.P.(C) No.30369 of 2011) M/s. K.V.K. Nilachal Power Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa and others Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr.Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Advocate M/s. Milan Kanungo, Sr. Advocate and Mr.S.Das For Opp. Parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appeal No. E/141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 is one batch of appeal which covers the period 1.12.1998 to 31.03.2004, arose out of common adjudication. The other batch of appeals No.972/2012, 988/2012 to 992/2012 covers the period April, 2004 to April 2006 arose out of common appeal order. 2. Revenue is in appeal registered as E/3044/2005. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES 3. Ld. Counsel Shri B. L. Narasimhan appearing for assessees submits that there are 3 issues involved in the first batch of appeal registered as appeal Nos. 141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 relating to the period 01.12.1998 to 31.03.2004. MANUFACTURE NIPPLE 4. The first issue in the first batch of appeals is whether complete feeding bottles cleared, manufacturing only nipple thereof and affixing/assembling thereto other components/accessories bought out from outside or manufactured by others, amounts to manufacture. 5. On behalf of appellant it was submitted that the nipple manufactured by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!