//
archives

Jaipur

This tag is associated with 13 posts

monitor the investigation= whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as directed earlier, even after filing of the charge- sheet. = monitoring of a case is continued till the investigation continues but when the investigating agency, which is appointed by the court, completes the investigation, files a charge-sheet and takes steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law before a competent court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to keep on monitoring the trial which is continuing before a competent court. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that since the investigation has already been completed, charge- sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring of the case in question. In these circumstances, we have to answer the question in the negative. Accordingly, we direct that it is not necessary to monitor the matter in question any further since the matter is in the domain of the competent court. All the applications are accordingly disposed of.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40830         Reportable   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.17950 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.15638 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010 IN   SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3212 OF … Continue reading

JURISDICTION = whether, in view of clause 18 of the consignment agency agreement (for short, ‘agreement’) dated 13.10.2002, the Calcutta High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the application made by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’). = Conclusion: 28. For the reasons mentioned above, I agree with my learned Brother that in the jurisdiction clause of an agreement, the absence of words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” or “exclusive jurisdiction” is neither decisive nor does it make any material difference in deciding the jurisdiction of a court. The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute. In the present case, only the Courts in Kolkata had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties.

Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40511 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5086 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5595 of 2012) M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. … Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The short question that arises for consideration … Continue reading

sec.302 ,/sec. 323 I.P.C. = No grounds to convert the case from sec.302 to sec.323 of Indian penal code = The Trial Court appreciated the evidence and came to conclusion that the respondents-accused were the aggressive party and they were five in numbers and all of them were armed.= Non- explanation of injuries on accused not fatal to the prosecution always = Before the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses, may be held to affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were also of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy; and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on the person of the accused are not explained by the prosecution cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently, the whole case of the prosecution.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40483 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1425-1426 of 2007 State of Rajasthan …Appellant Versus Shiv Charan & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2005, passed … Continue reading

AGREEMENT HOLDERS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO QUESTION THE ACQUISITION – NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE THE ACQUISTION = “It would be relevant to mention that the argument raised about certain lands of IAS & IPA officials being selectively left-out is without any substance. This argument would only suffice if the land belonging to the IAS/IPS officials on the date on of acquisition. This is apart from the fact that certain lands would be left out in acquisition proceedings. It is relevant to mention that no land belongs to any IAS/IPS official on the date of acquisition and any subsequent purchase would not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. Thus, the finding on this aspect does not suffer from any legal infirmity.” The aforesaid factual position has not been denied on behalf of the appellants before this Court.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40461 Page 1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4824 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4722 OF 2012) Rajendra Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. … Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4825 OF 2013 (Arising out … Continue reading

Complainant/respondent submitted application for sanction of loan to OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.39,326/- as process fee. Loan was not disbursed to the complainant; hence, complainant served notice on the OP for refund of process fee, but OP did not refund process fee. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum. Respondent/OP did not appear before District Forum. During pendency of complaint, OP refunded Rs.39,326/- to the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.39,326/- from 5.10.2007 till date of payment and further awarded Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. = Perusal of record reveals that as per Annexure P-5, loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, but disbursement of loan was subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in sanction letter. It appears that respondent did not avail loan facility due to technical difficulty as mentioned by respondent in letter dated 16.5.2010. Thus, it becomes clear that there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner. After filing of the complaint, process fee though non-refundable was refunded by the petitioner to the respondent and respondent vide Annexure P-7 dated 16.5.2010 apprised petitioner that now respondent has no grievance and he assured to withdraw all legal proceedings, which he has filed, meaning thereby, it was obligatory on the part of respondent to withdraw complaint filed before District Forum after receiving process fee. It appears that respondent has not acted with clean hands before District Forum. He has also mentioned wrong fact that loan was not sanctioned.- Once the respondent received process fee in full and final satisfaction, he should have withdrawn complaint as assured and he was not entitled to receive any interest on that amount as well compensation and cost as apparently there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 4797 of 2012 (From the order dated 14.09.2012 in Appeal No. 158/2012 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)     I.D.B.I. Bank D-24, Durlabh Niwas, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan through Branch Manager             …   Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus 1. Subhash Shah S/o Om Prakash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sarika Shah W/o Subhash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, … Continue reading

sub­clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act = whether the person seeking divorce “is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief”. On such examination if it is so found that the person is taking advantage of his or her wrong or disability it is open to the Court to refuse to grant relief. = In the present case, both the Courts noticed the relevant facts and came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has not only been cruel to the respondent, but has also brought the situation to the point where the respondent had no option but to leave the matrimonial home. In this situation as the appellant was trying to take advantage of his own wrong, the Courts disallowed the relief as was sought for. We find that the order to that effect of the High Court does not suffer any infirmity, illegality or perversity; no interference is called for.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3861 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.20277 of 2007) ASHOK KUMAR JAIN       …. APPELLANT VERSUS SUMATI JAIN     ….RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. The   appellant   has   preferred   this   appeal   against the   judgment   dated   9th  March,   2007   passed   by   the Rajasthan   High   … Continue reading

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, – “…..Conduct of an accused must have nexus with the crime committed. It must form part of the evidence as regards his conduct either preceding, during or after the commission of the offence as envisaged under Section 8 of the Evidence Act….”- The general good behaviour of the appellant and the fact that he had no bad habit have no nexus with the offence alleged against the appellant and are not relevant when other circumstances have established beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased.

Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 221 of 2007 Vivek Kalra …… Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ….. Respondent J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2004 of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, … Continue reading

consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act. = complainant hired architectural and structural consultancy of the petitioner/OP for renovation and extension of the Himmatgarh Palace Hotel complex at Jaisalmer. This service was to be provided in two stages, namely; conceptual stage and schematic stage. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,30,600/- as consultancy fee to the opposite party but as conceptual design was not complete, complainant filed complaint for refund of fee along with compensation and cost of litigation. OP/respondent filed written statement and submitted that complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, hence, complaint may be dismissed.= hotel was to be developed for self-employment which argument cannot be accepted because, firstly, no averment has been made in the complaint that services were availed for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and secondly complainant being branch of Thar Hotels (P) Ltd.,Jaisalmer, this business cannot come within the purview of business for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. In such circumstances, complainant/respondent does not fall within the purview of consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act. Complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint, though, on other grounds and learned State Commission has committed error in partly allowing the complaint and petition is liable to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the learned State Commission is set aside and complaint is dismissed. Complainant/respondent may initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of fees, etc. before any other Forum/Civil Court. Parties to bear their own cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI           REVISION PETITION NO. 1660  OF 2011 (From the order dated 13.04.2011 in Appeal No.610/08 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)   Abhikram, Through its Partner Mr. Nimish Patel, Amrit-Lila Bungalow, Off Nagari Hospital Road, Near Gujarat College, Ahmedabad – 380 006                                             …        Petitioner/OP   Versus   Hotel Himmatgarh Palace, through Col. Mansingh Managing Director, Thar Hotel (P) Ltd., Jaisalmer – 345 … Continue reading

mere pleadings are not enough, one has to file affidavit to prove the case. absence of affidavit is fatal=No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2864 OF 2011 (From the Order dated 31.05.2011 in FA No 738/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Indian Institute of Professional Studies Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Goyal                                                       Petitioner Assistant Director Deep Bhawan, Polytechnic Chauraha Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) Versus Smt. … Continue reading

transfer petition, child visitations rights, exemption from personal appearance in criminal cases to the old couple accused.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.5213 Of 2010 Deepti Bhandari … Petitioner Vs. Nitin Bhandari & Anr. … Respondents WITH TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.856-857 OF 2010 O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,468 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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