Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-10-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the appellant/accused Kapuri Bai against a Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7th September, 1999 delivered by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.219/95. 2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, co-accused Hotam Singh stands acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B or in alternative under Section 302 of I.P.C. So also present accused/appellant was also acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., but was held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which she was directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one year. 3. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 28/3/94 when Sunita Bai (since deceased) was brought to the hospital for treatment in a burnt condition. A Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/14) was lodged by her on the same day...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-27-2014
1 W.P.NO.44696/2014 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA WRIT PETITION NO.44696 OF2014(S-CAT) BETWEEN UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUN M I, ADV.) AND1SHRI YASWANTH G V S/O R VINAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT29YEARS C/O CHENDRASHEKAR NO.54/4, GURUVAPPA STREET FIRST FLOOR, SKV GAYATHRI FLAT AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-600023 2.THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN2W.P.NO.44696/2014 NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY3THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL4CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SAROJINI HOUSE, 6 BHAGAWAN DASS ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER5THE UN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-23-2014
- :1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF SEPTEMBER2014BEFORE THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P.No.22801/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: Dr.SMT.MANGALA SHRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT40YRS, W/O.SHRIDHAR NARAYANIH, R/A.NO.1914, 18TH A MAIN, SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, II STAGE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 078. .. PETITIONER (By Sri K.V.DHANANJAYA, ADV. & SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.) AND: THE KARNATAKA GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT OFFICE, REP.BY ITS UNDER-SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR (ADMN.) RAJ BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560 001. (DELETED V.C.O. DT.7/7/2014) 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. 2.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. .. RESPONDENTS (BY PROF.RAVIVARMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL & SRI A.S.PONNANNA, A.A.G., FOR SRI S.V.GIRI KUMAR, AGA FOR R-1 &2) - :2. :- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-22-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRL.P No.5865 OF2013BETWEEN SRI. LABHURAM S/O. SRI. GORDHAN RAM AGED ABOUT36YEARS R/AT. NO.5, POLICE QUARTERS BEHIND JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE PRESENTLY WORKING AS DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIME) BANGALORE (BY SRI. PRASANNA, ADV., FOR V. RAMESH BABU, ADV.,) ..PETITIONER AND1 SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE S/O. RATHNARAJ HEGDE AGED ABOUT47YEARS R/A. SULIYA GRAMA SULIYA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA.2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECTUR ..RESPONDENTS2(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, FOR R1, SRI. NASRULLAH KHAN, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED057.2012 PASSED BY THE JMFC SULIYA IN PCR No.94/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TAKING CONGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY REPONDENT NO.1 DATED057.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-05-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF AUGUST2014PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE R AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NO.33756/2011 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN MR. K. SUBRAMANYAM SASTRY, S/O SHRI K. PATINJALI SASTRY, AGED ABOUT33YEARS, R/AT NO.45/1/146, K.P.ROAD, ONGALE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-AP, CAMP AT: BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K S PERIYA SWAMY, ADV., FOR M/S.SOCIO LEGAL CLINIC, ADVS.,) AND1 THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.2. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE-560032. REP BY ITS DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & HEAD OF BRANCH CBI-ACB SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027 REP BY ITS: PAID CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR VRS. NATARAJAN. [PAID: CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR]. M/S. BEML LIMITED, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027. 2 [PAID: DIREC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-2014
Cromwell J. ” I. Introduction [1] The appellant, Ral Valle, fishes for crab in an area of the St. Lawrence River know as Zone 17, near Baie-Comeau, Quebec. He had been fishing for about 50 years, starting when he was just 15. In 2005 and 2006, he operated the fishing boat Realice which he owns through his company, Peracomo Inc. [2] While in his boat, he took an electric saw and cut a fibre-optic submarine cable that he raised to the surface after it had become entangled with his fishing gear. Mr. Valle knew he was cutting a cable and had adverted to the risk that it could be in use. However, he formed the belief that it was not. His belief was based on a handwritten note on some sort of map that he had seen for a few seconds the year before on a museum wall. This belief was wrong. The cable was live. The result was almost $1 million in damage. As the trial judge put it, Mr. Valle is a good man who did a very stupid thing. [3] Mr. Valle, his company and the vessel were sued succes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
1. By an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by this Court, this Court framed the following preliminary issue : "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the originating summons which has been taken out by the plaintiff in view of the suit being filed in the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the said Act after the originating summons was filed?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court on the preliminary issue framed by this Court. None of the parties have led oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Since the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant addressed this Court first followed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary issue are as under:- 3. Defendant is a lessor of a large piece of land admeasuring 48057 sq. yards described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. By an Indenture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. ICICI Bank Ltd through its power of attorney holder Mr.Vishal Umeshchandra Shrivastava, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum,Ahmednagar on 8.3.2007 while deciding consumer complaint No.515/2006. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Vasant Nawale resident of Bhende Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar had purchased tractor of John Deer of L and T company on 30.5.2005. The said tractor was purchased from Matruchhaya Sales and Service bearing No.MH-17D-1137. For purchasing said tractor complainant had availed loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from the appellant. Said loan was to be repaid by six monthly instalment of Rs.28750/-. It is alleged by the complainant that first instalment was due in January 2006 but due to some financial constrain he could not deposit said instalment. Accordingly, he informed the appellant about his inability to deposit first instalment. Even then on 18.5.2006 some musclemen accomp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/364/2010 dated 04.01.2011. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a shipping bill for export of 19500 WMT(Wet Metric Tonne)/17,745 DMT (Dry Metric Tonne) of iron-ore fines, declaring its assessable value @US $108 per DMT. The Department assessed the goods by enhancing its value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT and also the value was determined on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had directed the assessment on DMT basis and allowed the appeal against the enhancement of value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided two issues: (i). Whether the export goods be assessed to duty on WMT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Appeals are filed by the Revenue against respective three Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.03.10, 28.01.10 and 22.03.10, all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, involving a common issue. Hence, all these Appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts common in all these Appeals, relate to determination of assessable value of iron-ore fines exported by the Appellants. The Department assessed the respective shipping bills on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Undisputedly, the period involved in all these three Appeals, were after 13.06.2008, where the export duty of iron-ore fines has been charged on ad valorem rate basis. The Assessment Orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the arguments/grounds stated in the Appeal held that the said iron-ore fines be assessed to duty on the transaction value arrived at on the Dry Weight per Metric Ton (DMT) basis and not on Wet Weigh...
Tag this Judgment!