IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2288 OF 2005
|
|
- Bennett Newton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2288 OF 2005 Between: Shantha Kumar S/o Muniswamy Age: Major Junior Office Assistant Office of the Airport Authority of India Coimbatore Airport Coimbatore, Tamilnadu R/of No.AAI-Colony Civil Aerodrum Coimbatore Airforce Coimbatore -14 Appellant (By Shri Christoper Noel, Advocate Amicus Curiae) And: State by Central Bureau of Investigation Bangalore Respondent (By Shri P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) ***** This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment dated passed by the XXI
2 - 2 - Additional C.C. and S.J. and Spl. Judge for C.B.I Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.12/2000 convicting the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 51 and Sections 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and further sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 of IPC. All the above sentences shall run concurrently. This Appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:- JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri P.Prasanna Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appeal is by the accused who has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity).
3 The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant while functioning as Junior Office Assistant in the office of Airport Directorate, Airport Authority of India, Bangalore, had fraudulently, abusing his official position, in order to enable one Dhanalakshmi to make monetary gain, had forged certain documents to ensure that the major portion of death benefits of one Arokiadass, who was working as a Medical Transport Driver, could be obtained by Smt.Dhanalakshmi. It was alleged that the deceased Arokiadass, during his lifetime, had made nominations in the names of his family members as on in the prescribed format and had mentioned names of his daughters and other family members, attested by one V.Rajeshwara Rao, the then Accounts Officer. The deceased had also submitted authorisation for deduction from the salary under the National Airport Authority Benevolent Fund Scheme and had furnished the prescribed nomination form mentioning his wife Smt.M.Vijaya as the only nominee for the said Fund and had indicated that 100% of the benefit to be given to her.
4 - 4 - Arokiadass had passed away and when claim papers were submitted, the appellant Shantha Kumar, on , while processing the papers for the death benefits of the deceased, is alleged to have removed Pension Form III details of the family from the service book of deceased Arokiadass and replaced the same with a fabricated Pension Form III details of the family showing the name of Dhanalakshmi as the mother of the deceased and it is alleged that he has forged the signature of the deceased as well as the signature of the attesting officer Sri.V.Rajeshwara Rao. It was further alleged that he knowing fully well that the deceased had nominated his wife Smt.Vijaya, had fraudulently added the name of Dhanalakshmi as the mother of the deceased and altered the 100% benefit, mentioned against the name of his wife, to 25% and typed 75% against the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi in the Fund Scheme Authorisation form for deduction from the salary under the National Airport Authority Benevolent Fund Scheme. It was further alleged that he had removed the Form Rules GSLIS the letter of admission and authority dated and replaced it with the
5 - 5 - fabricated one, by inserting the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi as mother of the deceased Arokiadass by forging the signature of the deceased. It is on the basis of these documents that the Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India sanctioned the Benevolent Fund of Rs.50,000/- to be disbursed and therefore, it was alleged that the accused had committed the offences punishable under the afore said Sections as well as Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, It is on those allegations that the Central Bureau of Investigation Police had investigated the matter and on completion of investigation had filed charge sheet against the accused and after further proceedings, charges were framed against the accused and since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the prosecution tendered evidence through PW.1 to PW.14 and marked Exs.P1 to P After recording the evidence and on hearing the parties, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
6 - 6 - Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded and on the basis of the above, the court below had framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that there was valid consent for the CBI to conduct investigation in this case? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved that sanction order issued in this case for the prosecution of the accused is valid in law? (3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Shanthakumar while functioning as Junior Office Assistant in the office of Airport Directorate, AAI, Bangalore during September 1998 dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing his official position in order to make monetary gain to Smt.Dhanalakshmi, mother of deceased Arokiadass, who was working as a Medical Transport Driver in the office of the Airport Authority of India had forged certain documents to see that the death benefits of Arokiadass were given in major portion to the mother of the deceased. It was alleged that
7 - 7 - deceased Arokiadass when he was alive, furnished the nomination and the names of his family members on in the prescribed proforma mentioning names of his daughters and other family members and the said nomination form filed by the employee Arokiadass was attested by V.Rajeshwara Rao, the then Accounts Officer. The deceased had also submitted the NAA Benevolent Fund Scheme authorization for deduction from the salary under the NAA Benevolent Fund Scheme and prescribed Annexure-B and nomination form was submitted by mentioning his wife Smt.M.Vijaya as the only nominee for the NAA Benevolent Fund indicating 100% benefit to her. Subsequently, late Arokyadass who was the employee of the AAI, Bangalore passed away and then claim papers were submitted. Accused N.Shanthakumar on while processing the papers for the death benefits of deceased P.Arokyadass, dishonestly and fraudulently and by abusing his official position as public servant, removed pension form III details of family from the service book of deceased P. Arokyadass and
8 - 8 - replaced the same with a fabricated and false pension form III details of the family showing the name of Dhanalakshmi as mother, by forging the signature of the deceased and the signature of the attesting authority Sri. V.Rajeshwara Rao. It was alleged that the accused knowing full well that the deceased had nominated his wife Smt.Vijaya for the Benevolent Fund, dishonestly and fraudulently and by abusing his official position, added the name of Dhanalakshmi as mother of the deceased and altered the 100% benefits mentioned against the name of his wife to 25% and typed out 75% against the newly insered name of Dhanalakshmi in National Airport Authority Benevolent Fund Scheme authorisation form for deduction from salary/wages under the NAA Benevolent Fund Scheme and Annexure-B nomination form. The accused removed page No. from Rules GSLIS letter of admission and authority dated and replaced with a false and fabricated one by inserting the name of Dhanalakshmi as mother, by forging he signatures of the deceased. Based on the
9 - 9 - strength of documents forged by the accused, the Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India sanctioned the Benevolent Fund of Rs.50,000/- to be disbursed following the detection of forgery and the accused attempted to induce and cheat the nominee and also SD, AAI, Bangalore for making unlawful gain for himself and for Smt.Dhanalakshmi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.420/511, 568, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998? (4) Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused while functioning as Jr.Office Assistant, Airport Directorate while processing the papers for the death benefits dishonestly and fraudulent and by abusing his official position, as a public servant, removed pension form III details of family from the service book and replaced with a fabricated and false pension form II details of family showing the name of Dhanalakshmi as mother, by forging the signature of the deceased and the signature of the attesting authority Sri V.Rajeshwara Rao knowing full
10 well that the deceased had nominated his wife and fraudulently and by abusing his official mother of the deceased and altered the 100% benefits mentioned against the name of his wife to 25% and typed out 75% against the newly inserted name of Dhanalakshmi in National Airports Authority Benevolent Funds Scheme authorization form for deduction from salary/wages under the NAA Benevolent Funds Scheme and the page Nos. of the from Rule GSLIS letter of admission and authority dated and replaced with a false and fabricated one by inserting the name of Dhanalakshmi as mother, by forging the signatures of the deceased. Based on the strength of documents forged by the accused, the Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India sanctioned the Benevolent Fund of Rs.50,000/- to be disbursed to Dhanalakshmi and Smt.M.Vijaya in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. Moreover, this amount and the insurance amount was not disbursed following the offence of forgery for cheating thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 468 IPC?
11 (5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position forged the nomination forms of the deceased and used them as genuine and attempted to defraud AAO to obtain the wrongful gain for himself and Smt.Dhanalakshmi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sect. 471 IPC? (6) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused while functioning as public servant by corrupt or illegal means and otherwise abusing his official position as public servant forged the nomination forms of the deceased Arokyadass and used them as genuine and attempted to defraud AAI to obtain the wrongful gain for himself and in the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi and thereby has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998? (7) What order?
12 The Court then held points 1 to 5 in the affirmative and point No.6 in negative and convicted the appellant to imprisonment prescribing simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 of IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae, contend that the allegations of forgery are made against the accused on the strength of the material documents that are produced. However, though it has been established that there was indeed interpolation in the relevant documents and erasure of certain entries and retyping of other details in the several documents, the question whether the
13 appellant was responsible for those illegal entries having been made in the several documents, is the primary question. Insofar as the technical expert s evidence as to the hand-writing of the appellant matching the writing found on the several documents is concerned, the matter had remained inconclusive. It is in this background that this Court had remanded the matter directing the court below to record fresh evidence on that aspect of the matter, namely, to record the findings of the hand-writing expert as to the comparison of the admitted handwriting of the appellant and the handwriting found on the relevant documents. The Trial Court having recorded such fresh evidence has again arrived at similar findings to the effect that the same is inconclusive. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel would seek to emphasize that the evidence of the several witnesses would not be sufficient to hold that the appellant was responsible for the forgery that is alleged. It is this primary contention on which the learned counsel seeks to emphasize.
14 The finding of the court below that PW1 Maheshwari was working as Office Superintendent and PW2 was working as Junior Assistant looking after the service files in respect of the staff of Airport Authorities and PW3 was one Premachandran, who was also working as a driver in the Airports Authority of India at Bangalore and he was a colleague of the deceased who had attested Ex.P2, which is the service register of Arokiadass the deceased and PW5 V.Rajeshwara Rao, the Assistant Manager had all spoken of taking various forms from the employees for the purpose of providing retirement and death benefits and the manner in which the several documents were taken from the deceased for the said purpose. 9. PW1 has narrated that during September, 1998, she had received information of the death of Arokiadass through his elder brother and she had reported the same to the Airports Authority and also the Regional Office at Chennai. The accused had to arrange for payment of Rs.2,500/- from the
15 death benefit fund. She has stated that the accused had gone to Amblur along with the elder brother of the deceased to bring back the dead body of Arokiadass. PW2 who was looking after the service books of the employees and since the immediate death benefit settlement relating to the deceased was to be settled urgently, the concerned file was made over to the accused. Benevolent Fund is the immediate death benefit, which would be given. The Regional Head Quarters had asked for the particulars regarding the nomination. The accused had sent the particulars to the Regional Head Quarters by signal. Subsequently, the Regional Head Quarters had asked for the nomination forms for the payment of Benevolent Fund. This was by a letter dated The letter was sent by the Administrative Officer, namely, PW4. The accused has also signed the said letter after having prepared the same which is at Ex.P1. The witness has further stated that after going through the service book of Arokiadass, she had noticed whitener having been applied on certain writings and also had been retyped. The nomination form according to her revealed that
16 the nomination in favour of Vijaya, who was the wife of the deceased was entitled to 100% benefit. Subsequently, his mother s name was added and 100% nomination was erased and the nomination to the extent of 25% was made in favour of the wife and 75% was made in favour of the mother. The witness had noticed the subsequent additions and had observed from the back of the said document as there was whitener applied on the front side of the document. The subsequent addition was clearly visible as being freshly typed. This raised suspicion of the said witness who examined the document closely. Ex.P3 was the nomination form. It was the witness s suspicion that if there were any alteration or additions in the nomination, the same would be normally attested by the Administrative Officer and this would require a fresh application being submitted as per procedure and no such nomination could be altered or changed without the procedure being followed. This was apparently absent from the file and it was observed that the accused had signed as the witness for the nomination. His signatures were found at Exs.P1(b) and
17 P2(a-5). It was also known that any nomination would be required to be accompanied by Form No.III and though Ex.P3 the nomination form showed the same was attested by one Rajeshwar Rao, it was clear on perusal that it was not his signature. She doubted the signature of the deceased as well, found on Ex.P3. The right hand top endorsement regarding the diary entry on Ex.P3 was found to have been made by the accused, according to her. She had also stated about the Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme and that there was a form for the said claim. The employee would have to submit it and it would be duly attested by the Administrative Officer. Ex.P4 was such a form for the said Scheme. The accused has signed that form as a witness. The clinching factor that the entire documentation had been forged was this, that the document was dated While submitting the said form, the employee concerned was a Medical Transport Driver in the office of the Airport Director, Airport Authority of India. The present appellant below his signature at Ex.P4(a) has not mentioned his designation, but mentioned as office of ADAAI, Bangalore
18 During the relevant period, the Airport Authority of India was not even in existence because it came into being only in the year In the year 1994, it was the National Airports Authority of India and since the appellant had unwittingly mentioned the Authority as Airport Authority of India, though the signature is meant to have been affixed in the year 1994, the suspicion of the said witness was confirmed that it was a clear forgery. 10. The learned counsel would submit that the court below has accepted the above reasoning of the said witness in concluding that there was forgery committed by the appellant. The appellant though has denied the signatures attributed to him in those documents, the court below placing reliance on the testimony of the said witness, as to the appellant being the author of the forged signatures was proceeding on the footing that the signature of the appellant found on those documents were indeed his. This is the basis on which the court has thereafter given further reasons to hold that the charges against
19 the accused being established beyond all reasonable doubt. The endeavor of the learned counsel therefore is to contend that the entire case of the prosecution is on the basis of the suspicion harboured by PW1 in the manner as afore stated in her analysis of documents Exs.P2, P3 and P4. This according to the learned counsel would be an unfair manner in holding that the prosecution has brought home the charges and established its case, beyond all reasonable doubt and it is this vein that the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even if there was forgery in the documentation, it was not established beyond doubt that these documents were accessible by the appellant or he was in a position to forge the said signatures. The incidental circumstance that the file pertaining to the deceased had come to his hands in order to process the claim for Benevolent Fund, which was urgently required at a point of time, would not enable the appellant to carry out the elaborate replacement of the several documents and the forgery that is alleged when it was momentary entrustment of the file at that particular point of time. For otherwise, the file is not accessible
20 by the appellant as evident from the admission made by the witness which is part of the record and hence would submit that much is left to the imagination in urging the sequence of events, which are definite breaks in the chain, which the prosecution would have to establish, as being linked without any breaks, thereof, in order to bring home the charges. The allegations would visit the appellant with serious punishment, which indeed has been mulcted on him by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence, which is not consistent and which is not free from doubt and therefore, seeks that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 11. While the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the court below has methodically analysed the evidence of the prosecution and particularly, the evidence of PW1 and the manner in which the mischief was discovered. Therefore, the primary contention that even if there was forgery in the relevant documents, the same could not be attributed to the appellant, is not tenable. The further contention on the part of
21 the appellant that the witnesses have not categorically established that the actual signature attributed to the appellant as being in his capacity of an attesting witness in Exs.P2, P3 and P4, are also forgeries and cannot be said that it has been established as being that of the appellant, is incorrect. Though the handwriting expert s opinion has been characterised by the Trial Court as being inconclusive, the opinion of the handwriting expert was certainly not in favour of the appellant. However, the court below has relied on the oral testimony of the colleagues of the appellant in affirming that the signatures were indeed that of the appellant. The clinching factor however is the mistake committed by the forger. If indeed it was not the appellant who had affixed his signature, the mistake committed in indicating the Airports Authority of India under his signature, though it was not in existence in the year 1994, is a slip-up by the appellant himself which has exposed him. Apart from the appellant s signature, PW5 the Administrative Officer whose signature was also said to have been forged, was examined as a witness and he has categorically stated that the
22 signature was not his, coupled with this circumstance, it was only the appellant who was the other signatory to the document and the several co-workers having identified the appellant s signature which was unerringly compared with the appellant s signature, though it was said to have been forged, there can be no doubt of the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant. Therefore, there is no fault to be found with the reasoning of the court below. Therefore, this Court would not differ from the opinion expressed by the court below and hence would submit that in the absence of any other witnesses being involved in the attestation or otherwise of the said document, the appellant alone was the culprit and this would be the unerring conclusion as it is not the case of the appellant that the entire prosecution witnesses were inimically disposed towards the appellant. They were none other than the colleagues of the accused. He has been exposed on account of his own inadvertence and therefore, submit that there is no warrant for interference on the grounds that are urged by the appellant.
23 In the light of the above contentions and on a close examination of the record, the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the appellant for lenience in seeking modification of the sentence and punishment imposed, there is no warrant in any such reduction, as the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the appeal is dismissed. 13. The learned counsel Shri Christopher Noel shall be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fees for his assistance as Amicus Curiae and the assistance rendered is appreciated. Sd/- JUDGE AHB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF Murugan.Appellant(s) VERSUS
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1498 OF 2010 Murugan.Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Tamil Nadu.Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre,
More informationThrough: Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Pushpender Charak, Amicus Curiae. versus. ... Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENALCODE CRL.A. 475/2011 & Crl.M.B. 630/2011 (Suspension of sentence) Reserved on: 17th April, 2012 Decided on: 4th July, 2012 VINOD SHARMA...
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF Versus J U D G M E N T
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF 2013 ANTONY CARDOZA. Appellant Versus STATE OF KERALA. Respondent J U D G M E N T Uday U. Lalit, J.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5655 of 2018) Nagaraj.Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India.Respondent(s)
More informationThrough: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Mr. Gautam Awasthi and Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Advocates. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 CRL.A. 30/2003 Reserved on: 1st May, 2013 Decided on: 10th July, 2013 PURAN PRASAD... Appellant Through: Mr. Mahabir
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A.No.798/2005 # ANAND PAL... Appellant Through Mr.Lal Singh Thakur Advocate
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A.No.798/2005 # ANAND PAL... Appellant Through Mr.Lal Singh Thakur Advocate versus $ STATE... Respondent ^ Through Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP. * CORAM: HON'BLE
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO 276/2010 Reserved on: Decided on: versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 276/2010 RAJ KUMAR & ANR Through Reserved on: 20.10.2010 Decided on: 01.11.2010... Appellant Mr. Rajeshwar Tyagi, Adv. versus STATE & ORS. Through Nemo...
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (for reporting) (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. A (J) 74/2015 Sri Manik Medhi - Appellant -Versus-, The State of Assam and Another - Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: CRL.A. 27/2010 & CRL.M.A. No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: 17.12.2013 CRL.A. 27/2010 & CRL.M.A. No.152/2010 AMIT CHAUDHARY & ANR.... Appellants Through: Mr.Rambir Chauhan, Advs.
More informationDabba Trading. The Mechanics or Modus Operandi of Dabba Trading
Dabba Trading A Dabba Trading" also known as "Bucketing" is the process used by brokers to route their client s trades outside the Stock/Commodity exchange. In such trading, the broker either does not
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 APPEAL NO. 153 OF Date of Decision: 12th March, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1999 Date of Decision: 12th March, 2008 SRI SHARMA... Through: Appellant Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate.
More informationJUDGMENTS INTERMEDIATE COURT
JUDGMENTS INTERMEDIATE COURT ICAC v. Clairemont Builders CN No: 1595/12 - Judgment delivered on 23. 01.15 The Accused Company, Clairemount Builders Ltd, was charged with the offence of Money Laundering
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on : Judgment delivered on: versus....
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 03.8.2015 Judgment delivered on: 10.8.2015. + CRL.A.1414/2012 AJAY KUMAR MANDAL Through... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. versus STATE...
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 176 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 176 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.8851 of 2018) PALLAVI Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.A. 184/2003 Reserved on: 22nd May, 2013 Decided on: 22nd July, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.A. 184/2003 Reserved on: 22nd May, 2013 Decided on: 22nd July, 2013 JOGINDER @ JOGA... Appellant Through Mr. B.S. Chaudhary, Ms.
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision:15 th March, CRL. APPEAL NO.5/2008. Versus
R-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:15 th March, 2010 + CRL. APPEAL NO.5/2008 VIRENDER SINGH... Advocate Through: Ms.Shraddha Bhargava, Advocate Versus STATE... Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008 Judgment pronounced on 16th December, 2008 Crl.Appeal No. 427/1999 Parvati... Appellant Through:
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationkenyalawreports.or.ke
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS APPELLATE SIDE HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL 184 OF 2002 (From Original Conviction(s) and Sentence(s) in Criminal Case No 1320 of 2001 of the Principal
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Page No.1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Mfa 40 OF 2010 M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
More informationJOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) SCZ/103/2011 BETWEEN: JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA APPELLANT VS THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the
More informationVs Rankothge Devasena Samarakkodi
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 138 (1) of the constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM The appellant, SHABANI ALLY, was employed by the TRA at its Regional Branch in Morogoro as a TAX COLLECTION ASSISTANT (Cashier). He worked in the Computer
More informationREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APP. NO.109/2009
REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APP. NO.109/2009 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. versus KUNTI DEVI AND ORS.. Through:... Respondents
More informationDate of hearing :
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Sri Ajoy Bora @ Das PRINCIPAL SEAT Crl. Appeal (J) No. 81/ 2015 -Versus- State of Assam & Another.Appellant.Opposite
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2008 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : NOVEMBER 26, 2008 RFA 344/2001 RAM PARSHAD... Through: Appellant Mr.Ujjal
More informationCriminal Case No. 12 of 2004 in the District Court of Liwale. It was alleged by
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MTWARA (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J., MUNUO, J.A. And MJASIRI, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2005 KALOS PUNDA...APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC...RESPONDENT (Appeal from
More informationThrough: Mr. Anirudh Yadav and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocates. versus. ... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Ram Pal, PS Uttam Nagar.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.A. 1403/2010 and Crl. M.B. No. 1684/2010 (suspension) Reserved on: 17th April, 2012 Decided on: 4th July, 2012 SUMIT KUMAR... Appellant
More informationThrough Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. versus. ... Respondent Mr. R.V. Sinha, Spl. PP with Mr. A.S. Singh, Adv.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 CRL.A. 630/2002 Reserved on: 8th January, 2013 Decided on: 2nd April, 2013 KUNWAR PAL SINGH... Appellant Through Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
,. I I: ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) R,EPORTABLE: YES/ NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO (3) REVISED a., 11 tidtf: a.t. DATE SIGNATURE CASE NUMBER: A178/16
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR BETWEEN: ITA NO.828/2007 H.Raghavendra
More informationThe appellant was convicted by the District Court of Monduli at. Monduli in absentia for the offence of unlawful possession of government
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: KIMARO,J.A., LUANDA,J.A., And MJASIRI,J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.396 OF 2013 LONING O SANGAU.APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.RESPONDENT (Appeal from the
More informationRajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an
Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2008 Judgment delivered on : December 12, 2008 RFA No. 159/2003 IQBAL AHMED... Through:
More informationSUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO, J.J.S. 14TH SEPTEMBER AND 5TH OCTOBER,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO.28 OF 1982) APPEAL NO.
THE PEOPLE (1982) Z.R. 115 (S.C.) SUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO, J.J.S. 14TH SEPTEMBER AND 5TH OCTOBER,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO.28 OF 1982) APPEAL NO.72 OF 1982 Flynote Criminal law and
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.APPEAL NO.73/2010. versus.... Respondent Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, Advocate
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18 th February, 2010 + CRL.APPEAL NO.73/2010 ASHOK KUMAR @ BUDDHA... Appellant Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE... Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT Case no: CA 123/2016 SAUL MBAISA APPELLANT versus THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mbaisa v S (CA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No-160/2005. Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER ITA No-160/2005 Judgment reserved on: 12th March, 2007 Judgment delivered on: 24th May, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI...
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/08884/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/08884/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 18 December 2017 On 11 January 2018
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER. Judgment delivered on: ITA 243/2008. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATER Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2008 ITA 243/2008 SUBODH KUMAR BHARGAVA... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX... Respondent Advocates
More informationH.C.Cr. Appeal No. 621 of 2001) ****************************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, GITHINJI & DEVERELL, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2004 BETWEEN ALBANUS MWASIA MUTUA APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC... RESPONDENT (Appeal
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14/2014 Sri Ram Charan Bhuyan, Son of Sri Kumrua Bhuyan, Resident of Charanipani Tea Estate,
More informationTitle: Hakeem Tanveer V/s PIO Vigilance Organization Kashmir and PIO Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu
Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission (Constituted under Right to Information Act 2009) Old Assembly Complex, Srinagar, Fax No. 0194-2484269, 2484262 Wazarat Road Near DC Office, Jammu, Fax No.
More informationCOUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA
. Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2004 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM MUNUO, J.A MSOFFE, J.A AND KILEO J.A Nurdin Musa Wailu Vs, The Republic (Appeal from the Conviction of the High Court of Tanzania
More informationADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More informationCARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL FROM The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal DATE 29 September 2015 STATUS Immediate Negondeni
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF Versus STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2008 SUKHWINDER SINGH APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Stephen Jeremy Bache Heard on: 27 July 2015 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: Persons
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT APPEAL NOS. 989-1009/2015 (T-RES)
More information3.8 THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
3.8 THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 1. APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT Initial Applicability (Sec.1(3) The Act applies to (a) Every Factory, Mine, Oilfield, Plantation, Port and Railway Company, (b) Every Shop
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.No.4857/2013 (SC/ST)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.4857/2013 (SC/ST) BETWEEN SHRI R VAMSIDHAR S/O SHIR RAMACHANDRA NAIDU
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Lee Martin Holberton Heard on: Wednesday, 13 April 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR BETWEEN: ITA NOS.251/2016 & 390/2016
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER MAC. APP. 30/2006. Judgment reserved on: 14th November,2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER MAC. APP. 30/2006 Judgment reserved on: 14th November,2007 Judgment delivered on: 28th March, 2008 Jeet Singh... Through: Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE RESERVED ON : 11th MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON : 2nd APRIL, 2014 CRL.A.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE RESERVED ON : 11th MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON : 2nd APRIL, 2014 CRL.A. 133/2014 RAHUL JAIN @ SONU Through : Ms.Alpana Pandey, Advocate....
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 849/12 Not reportable Vincent Olebogang Magano and The State Appellant Respondent Neutral citation: Magano v S (849/12)[2013]
More information$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, versus
$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, 2015 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through : versus Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Adv.... Petitioners U. RAI ARYA... Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA BETWEEN ITA NO.374/2014 C/W
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 20XX DISTRICT : XXX MR. A.J.P. Age 23 years, Occ: Agriculturist R/o village XXX, Tal. XXX District XXX (At
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No 10 of 1996
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. # PRAN NATH... Appellant! Through: Mr. V.Madhukar, Adv. versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A.No. 165/2005 % Date of Decision: 25 th March, 2010 # PRAN NATH... Appellant! Through: Mr. V.Madhukar, Adv. versus $ STATE... Respondent ^ Through: Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD. First Appeal No. 63 of Decided on :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No. 63 of 1994 Decided on : 07.01.2009 Navjivan Industries, registered partnership firm, Kisandas Supduram Totla, Pradeep Kisandas Totla and Sunil
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT. THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AND. STRP Nos OF 2013*
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR STRP Nos.774-794 OF 2013* BETWEEN: M/S
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006 Ajay Ashok Khedkar............ Appellant. V/s Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar............Respondent.
More informationBENZILE McDONALD ZWANE B A I L A P P E A L J U D G M E N T. 1]The appellant applied for bail before the Magistrate, Port Elizabeth and his
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: CA&R08/2011 Date heard: 12 May 2011 Date delivered: 17 May 2011 BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE Appellant and THE
More information[1] This appeal, which is against both the conviction and the sentence, is with leave of
P a g e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) CASE NO: A259/10 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED. 18/04/2013.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Advocate. Versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1990/2010 PREM KUMAR Judgment delivered on:08 th February, 2016 Represented by: Advocate. Versus... Petitioner Mr. Yogesh Verma, CUSTOMS... Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By
More informationversus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: May 16, 2016 Judgment delivered on: May 17, 2016 + Crl.A. 945/2013 RAJU KUMAR VERMA @ RAJU Represented by:... Appellant Mr.S.K. Sethi with
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Appeal number: A242/2015 S.P. LETEANE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent HEARD ON: 29 FEBRUARY 2016 CORAM: MOCUMIE,
More informationThe appellant is challenging the decision of Lukelelwa, J. in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.125 OF 2005 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MTWARA. (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J, MUNUO J.A, AND MJASIRI, J.A) ISSA HAMIS KIMALILA APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT (Appeal from the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 PRESENT HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO 47 OF 2014 c/w. ITA NO.46/2014, ITA NO.494/2013
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: ITA No.415/ Appellant.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2013 ITA No.415/2012 CIT... Appellant versus MAK DATA LTD... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN v CLIFFORD ANDREW RODGER CoramEichelbaum CJ Tipping J Goddard J Hearing 30 April 1998 Counsel H Croft for Appellant S P France for Crown Judgment
More informationINTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
1 NTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATC SOCALST REPUBLC OF SR LANKA n the matter of an appeal in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. C.A. No. 151-152/1997
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010 + ITA 239/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal versus GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. Through:...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. R.S.A.No.941/2010
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL R.S.A.No.941/2010 BETWEEN I.C.VISHWAKUMAR S/O I.R.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH ADVOCATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2130 OF 2010 CONNECTED WITH
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2130 OF 2010 CONNECTED WITH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL
More informationWP(C) No of Versus- BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) No. 7363 of 2005 Shri Manik Gogoi, S/O Shri Jatiram Gogoi, R/O Eragaon, PO-Nakachari, District-Jorhat, Assam.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO: CA&R 361/2014 Date heard: 5 August 2015 Date delivered: 13 August 2015
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and
IAC-AH-SAR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th October 2015 On 6 th November 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: A812/2016 REPORTABLE OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED /11/2017 SAMMY ARON MOFOMME Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATTANGA {CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., MWARIJA, J.A. And MWANGESI. J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 CHARLES JUMA............ APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.......................
More informationPRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA STA Nos.2/2016 & 22-32/2016 C/w.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 16th December, 2013 RFA No.581/2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 16th December, 2013 RFA No.581/2013 SUNIL GUPTA Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Adv.... Appellant Versus HARISH
More informationIN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL. The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (1 st Defendant)
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles APPELLANT (1 st Defendant) VS M/S Kantilal of Mumbai, India herein represented By
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 AND
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.33089-33126 OF 2015 AND 4480-4489 BETWEEN: OF 2016
More informationREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. No. 385/2008 RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION... Appellant Through: Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus SMT. MUKESH AND ORS. Through:...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NDPS Act Crl. Appeal No.909/2005 Judgment reserved on: 29th February, 2012 Judgment delivered on: 02nd July,2012 BASANT RAI Through:Mr.Aditya Wadhwa, Adv
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015 Originating from Bunda District Court, Economic Case No. 18 OF 2012,Kassonso PDM) WESIKO MALYOKI...APPELLANT
More informationNETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS
NETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS SECTION ONE - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR Article
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER Date of decision: 6th August, 2012 FAO 23/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPENSATION MATTER Date of decision: 6th August, 2012 FAO 23/2000 N.K.MUDGAL... Appellant Through: Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Adv. versus JAI PRAKASH & ORS...
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 5 January 2016 On 19 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HUTCHINSON. Between BN (ANONYMITY ORDER)
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06347/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 5 January 2016 On 19 January 2016 Before DEPUTY
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN BRADLEY PETERS, SR., Appellant No. 645 WDA 2012 Appeal from
More information