13 May, 2015

Fact that mother is having M.A. degree and had stated that she would take care of her minor daughter and would provide her education - Custody cannot be denied to her on the ground that she was not an earning person

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Before :- A. K. Shrivastava, J.
Misc. Appeal No. 2473 of 2004. D/d. 4.4.2005.

Wazid Ali - Appellant
Versus
Rehana Anjum - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Ku. J. Aiyer, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- A. S. Usmani, Advocate.

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore

ORDER



A. K. Shrivastava, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against the order dated 25-8-2004 passed by the District Judge, Raisen, in Misc. Civil Case No. 32/2003.2. An application under Section 7 of the Act was filed by the present appellant that he and respondent were legally married in accordance with the customs of the Muslim Law on 1-11-1999.

Read full Judgment »

13 May, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

11 May, 2015

Both husband and wife claiming custody - Child willing to live with mother - Custody given to mother - Contention of husband that he would give somewhat better education to child - It is no ground to give custody to husband - Child was capable to express his desire

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- S.C. Malte, J.
Criminal Writ Petition 325 of 1997. D/d. 24.7.1997.

Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.L. Batta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


S.C. Malte, J. - Father of child Sidharth (aged about 5 years) has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for producing the said child Sidharth who is said to be in custody of respondent 3 Dr. Aradhana, who is mother of the said child. This is an unfortunate litigation between the parents of the child, who could not reconcile themselves in their matrimonial relations.

Read full Judgment »

11 May, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

29 March, 2015

Legal profession is not a commercial activity - Running of office by an Advocate in a building cannot be termed as Commercial activity - Electricity rates fixed for Commercial user cannot be charged

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Arijit Pasayat & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2000. D/d. 24.8.2005

Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shiv Narayan and Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Sakesh Kumar and D.K. Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ex-parte.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Arijit Pasayat, J. - An interesting question is raised in this appeal i.e. whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or is it a trade or business. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') and its functionaries charged the respondent No. 2-Advocate for electricity consumption at the rate applicable for commercial consumers. The demand was questioned by filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that the legal profession does not involve a commercial activity and, therefore, the rate applicable to commercial consumers was not applicable to him. The judgment is questioned by the Board in this appeal.

Read full Judgment »

29 March, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

It is duty of Service Provider to supply the prescribed form to consumer for settlement of the claims

It is duty of Service Provider to supply the prescribed form to consumer for settlement of the claims
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, Chandigarh

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB

SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.1416 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 11.08.2010
Date of Decision: 22.10.2014

Sh.Kulwant Rai Batish, retired Sr.XEN PSEB, Opposite New Grain
Market, Budhlada Road, Trio, Bhikhi, District Mansa.…..Appellant
Versus……..
1 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2047/ 2-1, Crown
Plaza, Ist Floor, The Mall, Bathinda.
2 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Water Works Road,
Mansa.
3 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company , Ltd., ICICI Prulife
Towers, 1089, Appasheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai
400025….Respondents/Complainants.

First Appeal against order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.

Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Madan Sandhu, Advocate.
For respondent : Sh.K.S Cheema, Advocate.

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has filed this appeal against the respondents (the
opposite party in the complaint) challenging order dated 29.06.2010 of District Forum, Mansa.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish · 0

20 February, 2015

High Court cannot quash prosecution solely on the ground that Govt. had proposal to withdraw the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- N. Santosh Hegde & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 964 of 2002. D/d. 22.2.2005

Balkar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Kumar & Ors. - Respondents

WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2005 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 510 of 2004).
For the Appellant :- Ajay Majithia and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate with N.M. Varghese, Ms. Tessy Paul, K.V. Mohan, Bimal Roy Jad, Dhruv Mehta and Mohit Choudhary, Advocates.


Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Santosh Hegde, J. - The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 26 dated 10.2.1998 registered with the Police Station, Majitha in Punjab. In the said complaint he alleged that the respondent herein Jagdish Kumar and some others of M/s Bhalla Kheti Store and the respondent Rakesh Kumar and

Read full Judgment »

20 February, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

17 February, 2015

Continuity of the possession is to be presumed unless some evidence is produced to the contrary

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

Before :- Mrs. Shyama Mann, F.C.
R.O.R. No. 496 of 1995-96. D/d. 13.1.1998.


Mukand Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Gurmail Singh alias Gela Singh - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Vinod Kataria, Advocate.

ORDER

Shyama Mann, FC. - This is a reference dated 19.6.1996 from the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide which he has recommended acceptance of the revision petition and for recording khasra girdawari of land comprised in Khasra No. 6M/16/1(7-16) measuring 7 kanals 1 marla situated in village Baho Sivian, Tehsil and District Bathinda in favour of the petitioner.

Read full Judgment »

17 February, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

18 December, 2014

Recovery of 13 kgs of opium - Sealed sample sent to FSL from Malkhana - No explanation where the sealed sample remained for two days before it reached FSL - Accused acquitted

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (FB)

Before :- Binod Kumar Roy, C.J., V.K. Bali and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 312-DB of 1995. D/d. 19.8.2004

Mohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Swatanter Kumar, J. - Appellant Mohan Singh preferred the above criminal appeal against the order of conviction and judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 11.7.1995, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereto to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under Section 18

Read full Judgment »

18 December, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

03 December, 2014

Medical evidence regarding death based on state of food in stomach cannot be brushed aside merely by saying it to be only an opinion evidence - Semi-digested food in stomach of deceased throws doubt on prosecution case regarding time of death

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- S. Natarajan And Kuldip Singh, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1979. D/d. 7.4.1989.

Surinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent


Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT

Natarajan, J.- The appellant Surinder Singh who has preferred this appeal by special leave has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 3000 and to undergo three years RI in default of payment of fine. He has also been convicted under Sections 25 and 27

Read full Judgment »

03 December, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

29 November, 2014

Police submitting a report that offence was made out against accused - Magistrate may disagree with report and drop the proceedings

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1999. D/d. 28.9.2004

Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Ajay Majithia, Shekhar K. Sinha and S.B. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Sushil Karanjakar, Vishwajit Singh and R.K. Adsure, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Arijit Pasayat, J. - The appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1013 of 1997 filed by the appellant.

Read full Judgment »

29 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

28 November, 2014

FIR lodged in an offence, but police taking no action - Complainant can lay a complaint before Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC - If Magistrate finds that complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Arijit Pasayat and Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 140 of 2006. D/d. 16.6.2006

Hari Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Parmanand Katara, Sr. Advocate, Manjeet Chawla, Kusum Lata Sharma, Albel Bhati, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Arijit Pasayat, J. - This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is for a direction to conduct enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI') into the murder of one Yashvir Singh, son of the petitioner. The allegation is that though First Information

Read full Judgment »

28 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

26 November, 2014

If there is some clerical mistake or some mistake which can otherwise be segrigated and cured, such mistakes do not vitiate whole of the award - Court can correct such mistakes by modifying the award and whole of the award need not be set aside for such mistakes

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
First Appeal from Order No. 364 of 1992. D/d. 18.7.1994.

Gables India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- R.S. Mittal, Sr. Adv. with M/s Arun Singal, and P.S. Rana, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Arun Walia, Assistant Advocate General Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Amarjit Chaudhary, J. - M/s. Gables 9 (India) Private Limited has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sub-Jduge 1st Class, Ropar, dated January 4, 1992, vide which the trial Court on application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed by the State of Punjab had set aside the award rendered by the sole Arbitrator on 23.8.1990.

Read full Judgment »

26 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

©2009-2011 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Download Print Friendly PDF FileFree Legal Advice on Phone