advocatemmmohan
jagdish singh
the appellant was not liable to reimburse supervision charges stipulated under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, does not lie in the appellant’s mouth. This is so, because the appellant has unilaterally accepted to pay supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The aforesaid Electricity Supply Code, 2005 became enforceable w.e.f. 18.2.2005. All the pleas raised by the appellant, to avoid payment of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, are also available to the appellant to avoid payment of such charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. If the appellant has accepted the 20 enforceability of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 over and above the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, it is not possible for us to understand why the appellant has failed to accede to abide by supervision charges levied under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. For exactly the same reasons, for which the appellant has accepted the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, it is liable to accept the levy of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002.
1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4209 OF 2007 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad …. Appellant Versus U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. …. Respondent J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant herein, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter … Continue reading
Murder case – dying declaration of victim -The fact that the incident occurred on 28.7.2003 and Kamini Verma eventually died on 1.8.2003, i.e., 4 days after the recording of the dying declaration also shows that she could certainly have been fit to make her dying declaration on 28.7.2003. Her fitness was actually recorded on the dying declaration by Dr. D.P. Dogra PW11. A number of prosecution witnesses reveal
1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2423 OF 2009 Deepak Verma …. Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.157 OF 2010 Dheeraj Verma …. Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …. Respondent J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, … Continue reading
Murder- how to prove circumstantial evidence -a best example=Indian police have got technical and electronic knowledge= “26. Holding that the call record Ex.PW-22/A evidences that two calls from Chandigarh were received on the mobile number 9871879824 in the afternoon of 23.7.2005, corroborates the testimony of the wife of the deceased who was staying at Chandigarh on 23.7.2005 that she had talked to the deceased over telephone in the afternoon of 23.7.2005, which in turn establishes that the mobile number 9871879824 was being used by the deceased on the date of his death; that the call records Ex.PW- 22/A and Ex.PW22/B establishes that the handset having IEMI No.350608101231170, which handset was used by the accused on a regular basis, was used by the deceased on 10th and 11th July, 2005 and that this establishes that the deceased and the accused were in touch with each other; the call record Ex.PW-22/B evidences that the handset which was used by the deceased on the date of his death was in possession of the accused soon after the death of the deceased and that the same is a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused; that the prosecution has been able to establish that the handset which was used by the deceased before his death and the revolver which was the weapon of offence were recovered at the instance of the accused…..”
“REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2272 OF 2010 Gajraj …. Appellant Versus State (NCT) of Delhi …. Respondent J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The facts, as they emerge from the judgment rendered by the Trial Court at Karkardooma in Sessions … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 