Court : Mumbai
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC by Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2011. The said case arises out of C.R. No. 217 of 2010 of Lonikand Police Station, Pune. In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping. 4. The petitioner has stated that he did not apply for furlough leave because in view of the Notification dated 23.2.2012 whereby sub-r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.178 OF2015Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle .Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. .Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8931/2015) JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The writ petition is admitted and in the connected matter, special leave is granted.2. The principal question for consideration is whether there is a binding extradition treaty in terms of Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 between India and Chile. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative.3. The subsidiary question, equally important, is assuming there is no binding extradition treaty between India and Chile, whether a requisition by Chile invoking the principle of reciprocity and the general principles of international law for extraditing the petitioner from India is maintainable. In our opinion, the general principles of international law do not debar the requisition. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2267 of 2015 --- Vikash Tiwary @ Vikash Nath Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwari @ Bikash Nath Tiwary, son of Sambhu Nath Tiwary, resident of Patratu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand Opp. Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P. --- 08/08.03.2016 In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned CJM, Ramgarh whereby and whereunder on the prayer made by the Inspector General (Prison), Jharkhand the petitioner has been directed to be transferred from Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh to Dumka Central Jail. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.11.2015 by which the prayer of the petitioner not to shift to any other jail from Hazaribagh Central Jail has been rejected.2. In connecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. The Revision Petition is against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 05.02.2015 whereby on an application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, the petitioners have been ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for three months for having failed to comply with the Order of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi ( CLB ) dated 09.12.2013, insofar as complete records of the company Krishna Real Estate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have not been supplied by them to the respondents in pursuance of that order. The petitioners shall be interchangeably referred to defendants, Sayals and judgment-debtors. The respondents shall be referred interchangeably as decree holders and Malhotras. 2. The respondents had filed Company Petition No. 48 (N.D.) of 2012 before the CLB against the petitioner defendants complaining oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of Krishna Real Estate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., under sections 397, 398, 399, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
V. Ramasubramanian, J. Preamble "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. It is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond the doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petitions under Section 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the following detenues, viz., (1) Jeeva @ Jeevarathinam, S/o Krishnan [A1]; (2) Manimaran, S/o Munusamy [A2]; (3) Uthiram @ Uthirakumar, S/o Kuppan [A3]; (4) Anbazhagan, S/o Ranganathan [A4]; (5) Velayutham, S/o Elumalai [A5]; (6) Sethu @ Ilango, S/o Govindasamy [A9]; (7) Anbu, S/o Sittrampakkathan @ Krishnan [A15]; (8) Baskar, S/o Murugesan [A16]; (9) Balashankar, S/o Nagalingam [A17]; (10) Thirunavukkarasu, S/o Kaniappan [A16]; (11) Saravanan, S/o Koallapuri [A19]; (12) Vimal @ Vimalraj, S/o Somasundaram [A22]; (13) Anbarasu, S/o Murugesan [A23]; (14) Kumar @ Kuttikumar, S/o Ezhumalai [A25]; (16) Munisamy, S/o Krishnan [A27]; (17) Nagaraj @ Sappai Nagaraj, S/o Krishnan [A28] before this Court and set them at liberty.) Common Order: P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this batch of Habeas Corpus Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The petitioner, only child of her parents, born on 08.09.1983, M.Sc. in Zoology, now pursuing her Ph.D. in Physiology from Punjabi University, Patiala, was engaged to Sanbir (respondent No.3), LL.B. From Panjab University, Chandigarh on 09.03.2011. Unfortunately, with the demise of her father on 08.07.2011, their marriage was postponed to be performed after the first Barsi of her father. The date of their marriage was ultimately fixed as 13.09.2013 but before that, respondent No.3 was arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.34 dated 27.02.2013 at Police Station Mataur, under Sections 302, 307, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act and is at present lodged in the New District Jail, Nabha w.e.f. 21.05.2013, having been transferred from Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, as per the orders of the Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh and is also facing trial in case registered vide FIR No.392 dated 31.08.2013, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
S.S. Saron, J. 1. Learned counsel for the State has filed short affidavit of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The same is taken on record. 2. As per office report, notice issued to respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Partapgarh has been received back unserved. In view of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, notice to respondent No. 3 is not necessary. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner Bansi Lal has been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 08.09.2014 in case FIR No. 107, dated 11.08.2011, registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. During incarceration of the petitioner, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the first respondent police to produce the body of the mother of the petitioner, namely Sarah Thomas, aged about 39 years, who is illegally detained, before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking an order, directing the first respondent police to produce the body of the mother of the petitioner, Mrs.Sarah Thomas, aged about 39 years, who is illegally detained, before this Court and set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner has averred in his affidavit that his mother, Mrs.Sarah Thomas, who has been working in Dubai for more than 10 years, use to visit him in India and holding valid passport in Passport No.K0895902, which was renewed on 20.10.2011. The petitioner further submits that his mother, had come from Dubai on 29.10.2014, by Emirates Airways and land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The issue which is to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiff, being the first born amongst the co-parceners of the HUF property, would by virtue of her birth, be entitled to be its Karta. Her claim is opposed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 while the defendants Nos. 5 to 9 have given their 'no objection' to it and their 'NOC has been filed along with the plaint. Therefore, defendant Nos. 5 to 9 are virtually plaintiffs. Defendants No. 10 and 1 1 state that their position is to be determined as per law. Ms. Mala Goel, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the parties to the suit are the co-parceners of the D.R.Gupta and Sons, HUF. 2. The suit property comprises residential property at 4, University Road, Delhi-110007 and some movable properties and shares such as (i) Shares of Motor and General Finance Ltd.; (ii) Deposits with Motor and General Finance Ltd.; (iii) Bank of Account in Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road; and (iv) Bank Account in Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!