Court : Chennai
ORDER1. The petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, D.Muthulakshmi, under a settlement deed dated 23.8.2010 and presented it for registration in the office of the second respondent. The second respondent, without registering the deed and without assigning any reason, is keeping it as pending Document No.P1243 of 2010. The petitioner has also paid the entire stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the settlement deed. On enquiry, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to produce the title deeds relating to the property sought to be settled by him in favour of his wife, failing which the registration will be refused. The operative portion of the communication of the second respondent dated 15.11.2010 is as follows:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the second respondent has passed an order on 28.1.2011 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Mayabarha in the district of Sonepur. Apart from the petitioner, there were three other candidates to contest the election to be the office of the Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. After declaration of the result of the election, the opp. party no. 2 filed an application under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur challenging the election of the petitioner on the main ground that he had more than two children born after the cut off date. The said election petition was registered as MJC No. 10 of 2007. The petitioner after appearing in the said election dispute has filed a show cause/written statement. In paragraph-4 of the written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation with regard to the dates of birth of his children stating the same to be incorrect and false. On 26.6.2010, the opp. party no. 2 (election petitioner) filed an alleged extract of the immunization regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal pradesh
1. The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2000, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Case No. 20-II-1999, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence, under Sections 323, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.7.1998, at about 9.00 P.M., the throat of Des Raj complainant was pressed and when his tongue came out of his mouth, respondents-accused Gautam Singh cut it by his teeth. On investigation, it revealed that Shama Devi, wife of injured, Madhu, his sister-in-law, Sansar Chand and Jyoti rescued injured person from respondents-accused and accordingly the matter was reported to Panchayat, who did not take any heed thereon. Accordingly, complaint was filed and on investigation, the respondentsaccused persons were charged for the offences, unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This writ application has been filed by the Assistant Teachers of Sri Arobinda G.S.F Primary School for approval of their services and release of all the payment since date of the recognition of the said school.2. The case as made out in the writ application is that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher on the strength of the resolution of the Managing Committee passed on 24th March 1978.3. The writ petitioners have further contended that they were rendering their services since their appointment without any break and their appointment was made as organizer teachers. The said school was subsequently recognized on 9th February 1981 and at the time of the inspection made by the sub-Inspector of School on 29.7.1983 the petitioners were found working in the school. The petitioners made several representations, between 1983 to 1989 to the District Inspector of Schools and the Chairman of the Municipality, to absorb and approve the said appointment of the petitioners. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This revisional application has been filed by Chunaram Mahato challenging the judgement of acquittal of the opposite party no. 2,3,and 4 from the charges under Sections 376/315/420 of IPC in Sessions case no. 128 of 2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Purulia.2. Chunaram Mahato lodged one petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia alleging therein that his daughter Gurubali Mahato, aged about 16 years, was raped by opposite party no. 2 Kalipada Mahato without her consent. However, Gurubali disclosed the incident to her parents after the alleged commission of rape on her. Chunaram Mahato along with two villagers went to the house of Kalipada who admitted the alleged incident of rape committed by him on Gurubali in presence of those two villagers and his brother Padak Mahato. The inmates of Kalipada assured Chunaram that Kalipada would marry Gurubali afterword. Thereafter, Kalipada and Gurubali started mixing free...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1) A Short but, indeed, an intricate question of law is raised in this revision application. To be stated precisely, the manner in which the learned Appellate Court suspended the sentence under challenge in the appeal is, in fact, questioned in this application.2) In a case, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, being no. C 986 of 1999, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta found the appellant guilty of offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15,05,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 3(three) months. The learned Court directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/-, in case fine is realised, to the complaint of the case as compensation. That judgement and order has been challenged in an appeal in the Court of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta being Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2010.3) The order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which has been impugned in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1) The challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tamluk, Purba Midnapur in T.R. no. 02 of 2003 arising out of Nanda Kumar Police Station case no. 85 of 2002 dated 21.8.2002 whereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharging him from the case.2) One Kalipada Adak (hereinafter referred to as Opposite party no. 2) being Vice-Chairman of the Chak Simulia Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Limited lodged one FIR with Nanda Kumar Police Station alleging therein that while the petitioner Rabindra Nath Bera was acting as the Secretary of the Society, mis-appropriated a sum of Rs. 91,028/-, in all of the society and manipulated the receipt book. On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was done by Nanda Kumar Police Station and a charge-sheet being no. 27 of 2003 dated 17.4.2003 was filed against the petitioner Rabindra Nath Bera under Section 403/409/420/468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Matter has come upon misc. application (Inward-24680/dt.22/11/2010) filed by respondent-1 (Prakash Jhunjhunwala) in Company Appeal-1/2009 U/r 9 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, assailing proceedings initiated by appellant Bank (secured creditor) regarding auction of immovable property (E-16, IPI Area, Electronics Complex, Kota) held on 22/09/2010; and seeking direction to the appellant-Bank to hold auction proceedings afresh in accordance with procedure under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002). It is a matter of record that appellant-Bank preferred company appeal U/s 10-F of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Co. Act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the Company Law Board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by Company Court on 24/07/2009 which was sought to be modified by appellant Bank by way of application, which was partly accepted vide order dt.15/04/2010 whereby liberty was granted to appellant Bank to dispose of immovable assets in its possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Ni.A.No.1207/2010 dated 27.10.2010, which was received on 03.11.2010, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the Deed of Settlement dated 20.10.2010 executed by the petitioner in favor of his wife, Mrs.G.Rasoolbi.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 27.10.2010 to the Inspector of Wakf, Thiruvallur, in letter No.Ni.Aa.1207/2010, dated 27.10.2010 seeking certain clarification as to registration of the Deed of Settlement in question, since the survey number dealt with in deed, namely, S.No.97A/1A belongs to Thulukkan Chatram Wakf and a copy of the same also marked to the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that when he has executed the deed of settlement dated 20.10.2010 in favour of his wife, M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 07.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU S.A.No.895 of 2005 Rajeswari ... Plaintiff / Appellant vs. 1.Selvaraj (Died) 2The District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Dt. ... 2nd Defendant / 2nd Respondent 3.Selvi 4.Devendran 5.Devi 6.Madhavi ... Defendants / Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 19.01.2005 made in AS No.150/2003 reversing the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Sirkali dated 22.08.2003 made in OS No.214/2000. For Appellant : Mr.S.Sounthar For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukumar for R1 No appearance for R2 JUDGMENT The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.214 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 22.08.2003. Challenging the same, the 1st defendant/appellant filed A.S.No.15...
Tag this Judgment!