Reported in : 2006CriLJ1768
.....orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this act. that the judgment dated 1.12.1990 was passed in s.t. no. 85 of 1986 by the additional sessions judge, fatehpur, is not a fact in issue here. furthermore, section 40 can bar a second suit or holding of a second trial of the same accused, but it does not bar the trial of another accused. section 41 also refers to a final judgment, order or decree of a competent court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character. this section also has no application to the present case. section 42 states that judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; but the judgment in consideration here does not relate to any matters of public nature. hence section 42 also does not apply. therefore, the judgment and the evidence therein is irrelevant for arriving at a finding of about the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2006(109)FLR165]; (2006)IIILLJ173All
.....of what is being deposed. while recording the evidence the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal shall follow the procedure laid down in rule 5 of order xviii of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).(7) on completion of evidence either arguments shall be heard immediately or a date shall be fixed for arguments/oral hearing which shall not be beyond a period of fifteen days from the close of evidence.(8) the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, as the case may be, shall not ordinarily grant an adjournment for a period exceeding a week at a time but in any case not more than three adjournments in all at the instance of the parties to the dispute.provided that the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant an adjournment exceeding a week at a time but in any case not more than three adjournments at the instance of any one of the parties to the dispute. (9) in case any party defaults or fails to appear at any stage the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, as the case may be, may proceed with the reference ex parte and decide the reference application in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006CriLJ1782
.....appellant no. 2 tara chand son of kali charan expired and his appeal stood abated by order of this court dated 15.12.2003.3. briefly stated, the facts of the case were as under:---pw 1 kanti prasad and pw 2 desh raj sons of soran lal were real brothers and both lived in mohalla sarai mansingh police station shasnigate, aligarh pw 2 desh raj was elder brother. both brothers were working on the furnace on 28.7.1979. on the same day, at about 3.00 p.m. guddan, son of hasmukh accompanied by tara chand son of kali charan reached the house of informant (kanti prasad) and asked them as to why did they complain about them to kolies of misri sarai. desh raj replied that he had made no complaint tara, who was having a cartridge, passed on the cartridge to guddan, who took out his country made pistol. tara asked guddan to teach a lesson for making false complaint. guddan filled up the cartridge in his tamancha and fired at desh raj with a view to kill him. the pellets hit at the right shoulder of desh raj and he sustained grievous injuries. kanti prasad and his brother prem pal, tara chand and his uncle kali charan arrived there. lekhraj and others also reached there and they succeeded.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(2)AWC2055
.....was made by u.p. higher education services commission vide advertisement no. 32 (annexure-3 to the writ petition) on april 2, 2001. this is a fact which is not disputed here.3. the fact remains that the petitioner was one of those, who applied. while the respondent no. 6 had not applied pursuant to the said advertisement, for the said post and after selection u.p. higher education services commission declared the petitioner as a successful candidate. it should be noted that while applying for the post of lecturer, the petitioner, in order of preference, as permitted and required under section 12(4) of u.p. higher education services commission act, 1980, had given the aforesaid college as his preference no. 2, but the respondent director did not post the petitioner in u.p. college, varanasi, but posted him in kamla nehru post graduate college, rae bareilly a posting for which he had not at all applied in his application form. since the petitioner was not given placement in u.p. college, varanasi or for any other college for which he had applied, he refused to join in kamla nehru post graduate college, rae bareilly pursuant to order of his appointment dated 20.9.2004 issued.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(2)AWC2086
.....by the five members committee of the appellant and directed by the government order dated 9.12.2002 as contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition.facts of the case:2. the appellant, u.p.p.c.l. placed two firm orders on the respondent no. 1 in appeal on 23.4.1980 for supply of insulators and the agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. a dispute arose between the parties and it was referred to the arbitration of one sri r.d. maheshwari, a retired chief engineer of the then u.p. state electricity board, the predecessor of the present appellant, u.p.p.c.l. the respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition on 20.12.1991 claiming a sum of rs. 1,482.66 lacs. the claim was contested by the then u.p. state electricity board (hereinafter referred to as the 'u.p.s.e.b.'). sri r.d. maheshwari, the sole arbitrator passed an order on 26.3.1992 directing that the claims under two heads would be considered by him and the other claims will not be considered. this order dated 26.3.1992, passed by sri r.d. maheshwari, the sole arbitrator was challenged by the uicl before the civil judge (senior division), rae bareilly. it was also prayed by the uicl before the civil judge.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006CriLJ1467
.....process had fused (age of fusion 15 years) and the lower end of radius ulna was not fused (age of fusion 18-20 years). considering the above fact and the legally permissible margin of error of two years on either side it could not be ruled out that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years on the date of occurrence.10. the testimony of the prosecutrix clearly shows that on reaching the khamba tank while she sat for attending a call of nature, the accused-appellant caught hold of her, lifted her and took her to a distance and thereafter committed rape on her. the medical evidence of dr. rama ghosh p.w. 7 has been referred in paragraph 3 of the judgment which clearly shows that sexual intercourse was brutal and very painful. dr. rama ghosh found multiple bruises reddish blue in colour on the breasts of prosecutrix who was complaining of pain all over both breasts. the prosecutrix was not able to walk comfortably and could walk with difficulty. there was a cut present at the joint of both labia majora and labia minora which was skin deep red in colour, margins were lacerated 1 cm. long and it bled slightly on touch. her vagina was very tight, though admitted two.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : III(2006)ACC370; 2007ACJ1778; 2006CriLJ4246; 2006(2)MPHT146
.....for six months and fine of rs. 3,000/-, r.i. for 3 months and fine of rs. 500/-, r.i. for one month and fine of rs. 500/- respectively.2. the short facts of the case are that on 27-1-1999 at about 11.30 a.m. vesta and kunwar singh were working in the field of ganesh patidar. applicant came from the side of the village driving tractor bearing number m.p.-10-a/1109 rashly and negligently. vesta was dashed by the tractor and was crushed by the wheels of the tractor. kunwar singh also sustained injury on his hand in this accident. police registered a case under sections 304a, 279 and 338 of ipc against the applicant and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned magistrate. learned magistrate after trial found applicant guilty and convicted him as stated herein above.3. learned counsel for the applicant shri l.s. chandiramani contended that there is no evidence to prove that accused/applicant was driving the tractor rashly and negligently at the time of incident. he has drawn attention of this court specifically towards mechanic report of the tractor ex. p-9 and the statement given by prosecution witness rewaram p.w. 9. learned counsel submitted that by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : II(2006)ACC201; 2006ACJ2383
.....to nature of accident which is recorded in favour of claimants and against the m.p.s.r.t.c. holding them (driver of m.p.s.r.t.c.) negligent is factually and legally sustainable? this is how in all these appeals and cross-appeals whole controversy is involved.5. heard mr. manish jain, the learned counsel for the appellants and mr. s.h. karanjwala, the learned counsel for the respondents.6. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part filed by the claimants, i.e., m.a. nos. 248, 57 and 134 of 1999 and dismiss the appeals filed by m.p.s.r.t.c., i.e., m.a. nos. 135, 167 and 129 of 1999. as a consequence, the impugned award deserves to be modified in favour of the claimants, i.e., appellants of three appeals mentioned above to the extent indicated infra.7. we have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. so far as the claimants are concerned, they have examined ishwari lal, pw 4, as one of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the accident. he has in clear terms deposed and we have no reason to disbelieve his version that it is the bus which dashed the motor cycle. he has deposed that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(1)MPLJ419
orderabhay m. naik, j.1. short facts giving rise to this civil revision are that shri bhagchand sharma had an insurance policy against his life bearing no. s/341332096 for a sum of rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) issued by the life insurance corporation of india on 27-3-1990. the respondents are the daughters of bhagchand sharma, who became unwell during his duty hours and was admitted to the government district hospital, khandwa. bhagchand sharma died during his treatment in the hospital. the matter was reported to the police who got the post mortem performed on the body of deceased bhagchand sharma, no offence was found to have been committed and accordingly, the concerning police station closed the case of death of bhagchand sharma. the factum of death was informed to the life insurance corporation of india. there was one more policy of insurance bearingno. s/341331808 against the life of bhagchand sharma for a sum of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). the claim was submitted for the assured money with respect to both the aforesaid policies. the amount of insurance payable under the policy no. s/341331808 to the tune of rs. 10,796/- (rupees ten thousand seven hundred and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : I(2006)DMC784; [2006(1)JCR271(Jhr)]
ordern. dhinakar, c.j.1. the petitioner is the husband and he was ordered under section 127 of the code of criminal procedure to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/- per month to his wile, smt. reeta devi, who is the opposite party no. 2 in this revision.2. when the said petition was filed for enhancement of maintenance from rs. 1500/-to rs. 6000/-, the family court, while allowing the petition, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/-, hence, the revision.3. learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the very prayer of opposite party no. 2, smt. reeta devi, in the petition filed under section 127 of the code of criminal procedure is that she is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of rs. 6.000/- per month and therefore, the family court was not justified in directing him to pay a sum of rs. 7.000/-.4. on the above contention, i have heard mr. m.b. lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, who submits that he will have no objection if the sum of rs. 7,000/- awarded as maintenance is reduced to rs. 6,000/-, as prayed for by opposite party no. 2 in her petition under section 127, cr pc.5. taking into consideration the submissions of both.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT