Ajaib Singh

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Industrial Dispute Act – Since the claim was made after six years of termination, compensation only awarded to the workman = “Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Lal (Post-Mistri), who has been represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Kota Cantt., from service by the Employer – Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division – Kota is legal and justifiable? If not, then applicant – labour is entitled to get what relief and compensation?”= In our opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid by the appellant (employer) to the respondent (workman). We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made by the appellant to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 23. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40659          REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6795 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11305 of 2006) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota … Appellant Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent       JUDGMENT     R.M. LODHA, J.   … Continue reading

Non- framing of charge cause no prejudice = In the case at hand, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC have been established by the prosecution inasmuch as the death has occurred within seven years in an abnormal circumstance and the deceased was meted out with mental cruelty. Thus, we convert the conviction from one under Section 304B IPC to that under Section 306 IPC. As the accused has spent almost five years in custody, we limit the period of sentence to the period already undergone.= It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day.- “We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial courts and it can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty.”= “Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons are there, the trial court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking.”= Recently, in Akil @ Javed v. State of Delhi[17], the Court, after surveying the earlier pronouncements, has stressed on the compliance of the procedure and expressed its anguish that the trials are not strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the provisions contained in Section 231 along with Section 309 of the CrPC, and further emphasised that such adherence can ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the possibility of any maneuvering taking place by granting undue long adjournment for mere asking.- We have expressed our anguish, agony and concern about the manner in which the trial has been conducted. We hope and trust that the trial courts shall keep in mind the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by this Court and not be guided by their own thinking or should not become mute spectators when a trial is being conducted by allowing the control to the counsel for the parties.- It needs no special emphasis to state that dispensation of criminal justice system is not only a concern of the Bench but has to be the concern of the Bar. – An advocate cannot afford to bring any kind of disrespect to fairness of trial by taking recourse to subterfuges for procrastinating the same. 35. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant be set at liberty if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. ‘

‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl. ) No. 6183 of 2012) Gurnaib Singh … Appellant Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. 2. Respect of a bride in her … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,880,951 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com