AjayMukundS/Indian_Legal_NER_Dataset huggingface dataset:
when the State ,  after  receiving the  permit, sent instructions to the assesses	to  despatch sugar and the assesses despatched it a contract emerged	 and consent must be implied on both sides	  though      not expressed  antecedently to the prmit.
State, ofMadras	 v. Gannon Dunkerky Co., [1959] S.C.R.	379 andThe	Tata Iron and SPA Co. Ltd. v.	     The State	of Bihar, [1958] S. C. R. 1355, explained.
However, contrary to her above depositions made in her examination­in­chief regarding meeting the Investigating Officers Mr. Girish CC No. 146/15, CBI Vs. Gopal Krishan 48/90 Bhardwaj (PW11) and Mr. Rajesh Chahal on 10.05.2010, she has stated in her cross­examination dated 04.06.2014 that she had only met the SP of CBI in the CBI office on 10.05.2010.
*** Date of Order ::: 25/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi *** For petitioners - Sarva Shri Rajendra Soni, Shailesh Pra.Sharma NK Maloo, SS Hora, Tanveer Ahmed,Vinod Gupta, Kailash C. Sharma, RD Soni/Kuldeep Aswal, Rampartap Saini, Ripu DS Naruka, HR Kumawat, Praveen Sharma, Rajeev Sogarwal, JK Yogi, Rajesh Kala, SS Mahla, Shiv C.Gupta & TC Sharma.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13938/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Manas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 

 On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.   
 (Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014
Further, the prosecution case was that the swami had met Savita on 30.11.1994, in the evening, and tried Crl.A.Nos. 786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 33 to cover it up, by asking PW-13 to depose in Court that if questioned by the police, he should tell that he (the swami) had in fact visited PW-13 that time, since he lived in West Patel Nagar.
Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Para-9 and 10 of the Reply of petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annxure-5) where said that trade mark "Hero" exclusively vests with plaintiff and said trade mark can only be used by defendant-appellants as corporate name, that too not for bicycle is Patna High Court MA No.121 of 2015 false and incorrect.
The next claim is against the non-allowance of bad debts written off of the following items :  
 (a) Rosella Products Rs. 3,00,000 (b) Maccoos General Foods (P.) Ltd. Rs. 3,00,000 (c) United Precision Industries Rs. 64,587 (d) Narendra Motta Rs. 29,680 (e) Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Rs. 1,00,000
It may be noted that in December'57 original plot No. 4 comprised of 113.4 sq. mts. let to the appellant, 390 sq. mts. let to M/s Dhanji Mavji, 453 sq. mts. let to two asso- ciate firms (M/s Gordhandas Ranchoddas and M/s Chunilal Gupta) and 195 sq. mts. let to M/s Vassanji Hirji.
We direct that from the file that has been produced, the copies of the two documents, viz. (1) letter written by Mr. Avade to the . _Revenue Minister on 5th October, 1983 with all endorsements thereon, and (2) note of the Revenue Secretary dated 19th September, 1984 for the Cabinet, should be placed on record of this case before the file is returned to Respondent No. 2. 
Ordered accordingly.
In ILR 1953 Nag 116: (AIR 1953 Nag 12) Hidayatullah, J., (as he then was) and Choudhuri, J. held at page 121 (of ILR Nag): (at p. 14 of AIR): 
 "Order 41 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, was not meant to negative the provisions of Order 22.
In 1930, Raghavamma filed a suit for possession of the property impleading  Chenchamma as the first defendant, Kamalamma  as the second defendant and Punnayya as the third defendant.
934 Chenchamma,  the  first	 defendant  and	 the  present  first respondent,  contended	that  Venkayya	was  not  given	  in adoption  and that there was no partition as alleged by	 the plaintiff.
In support of this proposition, the Id. representative for the assessee relied on the following rulings :-
(1) Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents P. Ltd. (125 ITR 227) (Guj) (APP) (2) CIT v. Anniversary Investments (175 ITR 199) (Cal) (3) CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank (202 ITR 559) (Cal) (4) CIT v. Jardine Hinderson (210 ITR 981) (Cal) (5) Shaan Finance Ltd. (231 ITR 308 at 314) (SC)
1. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur with reference to letter No. 6918 dated 22.10.74. 

2. Shri Mangat Rai Mitruka, Addl. District and Sessions Judge Jaipur city-3. 

The pay fixation was done by the State Government in terms of Rule 29 subclause (b) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules! Rule 29 (b) of the Rules as under:
29.
3. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed following in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 5 SCC 82],:
 "13.Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act.
Reliance was placed on the law laid down in  State of Gujarat   Vs.   Harumal   Retumal   and   others   2008   FAJ   292   (Guj),   Koyakutty   Vs.   Food   Inspector   2000   (2)   FAC   238   and   Shew   Chander   Mathur   and   anr   Vs.   State   of   Assam and anr., 1991 (1) FAC 9.



26.
Mr.K.P.Raval, the learned APP, has vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the trial Court committed no error in finding the accused no.1 Popatbhai Mohanbhai guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the accused nos.4 and 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
Microsoft Office 2000 Rs. 10,500/- Per unit 720 (In 5 Years) Rs. 75,60,000/- Microsoft Visual Rs. 12,600/- Per unit 180 (In 5 Years) Rs. 22,68,000/- Studio 6.0 Microsoft XP Rs. 6,200/- Per unit 144 (In 1 Year) Rs. 8,92,800/- Professional Version 2002
In Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal 1962 AIR(SC) 527 ], the law is stated in the following terms:
"The Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly not exhaustive: it does not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor does it seek to provide rules for decision of all conceivable cases which may arise.
In that case, the order of termination of the (1) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 689. 

 (2) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606. 

 (3) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716. 

 appellant's service which was preceded by an enquiry into his alleged misconduct was based on the finding of miscon- duct which amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career.
While a written examination has certain distinct advantages  over the  viva voce test, there are yet no  written   tests  which   can  evaluate   a	 candidate's initiative,  alertness,	  resourcefulness,   dependableness,
cooperativeness,   capacity    for   clear    and    logical presentation, effectiveness  in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and  dealing with  others,  adaptability,  judgment,
ability to  make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity.
P.W. 3 is the complainant Vibha Godghate, P.W. 4 Ashish is son in law of P.W. 3, P.W. 5 is Medical Officer who had examined the dead body, P.W. 6 is Police Officer who reached the hospital and had drawn inquest panchnama and spot panchnama, P.W. 7 is one of the eyewitnesses who stays in the same locality, P.W. 8 Anup and P.W. 9 Ravindra were witnesses to the incident.
The report of this incident was lodged by PW-1, Om Prakash, the uncle of the deceased at the police station Onchha on 16.4.2002 at 3.30 P.M and a case was registered under section 302 I.P.C at crime No. 96 of 2002 at the said police station by PW-5 HC Sudhir Kumar, who made the necessary G.D. Entry.
An application under Order 14 rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed on behalf of Ms. Karuna Solanki for amendment of the issues framed on 14.1.2010 and it was observed in the order dated 24.4.2012 that the applicant and her sons had been impleaded as parties and they would be given opportunity to lead evidence to prove whether they are the dependents of the deceased. 

8.
Discrepancies, Cr.A No. 491/1994 Cr. A No. 1190/1996 contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness should be evaluated with a balanced approach in right perspective, the Apex Court, in this regard, in AIR 1983 SC 753 (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat) in para 5 observed as follows:-
 "Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies.
A more definite stand, however, is taken by P.W. 2, Balaram Choudhury, who says that the Sunri caste is sub-divided into three sub-castes--Saha-Sunri, Sow-Sunri and Sunris proper and that while he himself belongs to the Sunri sub-caste, Respondent belongs to the Saha-Sunri sub-caste.
The applicant is in custody since 24.3.2014 relating to Crime No.103/2014 registered at Police Station Amlai District Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(Ka), 368, 376(2)(jha), 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
[also see Basavaiah(Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh-(2010) 8 SCC 372; University  of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao-AIR 1965 SC 491 and Dalpat    Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr.B.S.Mahajan-AIR 1990 SC 434].    

12.3    In Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal( ) the Supreme Court after referring to its judgment in University of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao( ) observed that in the matter of appointment in the academic field, the Court generally does not interfere.
The police registered Crime No. 43 of 1991 under S. 498-A I.P.C. and investigated and filed the charge sheet dated 11-7-1991 under S. 498-A read with S. 34, I.P.C. read with S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C. No. 120 of 1991 and issued summons to the petitioners herein.
Immediately, thereafter with effect from 23.12.2008 till 11.08.2008, accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka transferred a sum of `200 crores to M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. through a circuit route via M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd.
The aforesaid binding effect of the judgment rendered by this Court in Shyam Sunder's case (supra) stands negated with the order passed by the Supreme Court on 8.10.2002 consequent upon the filing of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court disposing of the instant writ petition on 29.1.1999 (relevant part whereof has been extracted in paragraph 7 hereinabove).
While recording the statement of accused nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this circumstance of their arrest by PW 11 on 5/11/1997 was not put to them, though in question no.23 the depositions of PW 19 - Katakdaund regarding their arrest by Santacruz Police Station on 5/11/1997 was put to them.
Another supplementary deed was executed on 1st Jan., 1990 and copy thereof is appearing at pp. 131 to 133 of the paper book by which Clause 4 was amended by adding the following clause :
 That w.e.f. 1st April, 1990, the opening balances lying on that date in the capital accounts of the partners shall be sub-divided into (1) fixed. capital account, (2) partners' current accounts.
This revision application has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2004 passed by Sub Judge II, Munger in T.S.No. 20/93 rejecting the petition dated 06.09.1994 filed by the defendant 1st Set praying for rejection of the plaint under Patna High Court C.R. No.476 of 2005 dt.26-08-2011 Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 

 4.
The 'Roka' ceremony was performed on 14.01.2008 at Hotel Friends Residency, Ludhiana, marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2008 at Club Nirvana, Ludhiana, reception was celebrated at Blessing Resorts, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana on 03.12.2008, the couple left for Australia on 12.12.2008 where some ceremony in the nature of marriage was performed on 31.12.2008 as well for the purpose of registration of marriage in Australia.
However, in the meanwhile, on 4th September 2009, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 and 120B IPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate 29th Court at Dadar, Mumbai, praying that the matter be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) and for a report under Section 173(8) of the Code.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government.
The order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2010 against accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 417, 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and consequential proceedings initiated against them on the basis of FIR No.170/2007, Police Station Moti Dungari, Jaipur, are quashed and set aside. 

(Mohammad Rafiq) J. 

//Jaiman//
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
 (a) Asha and another v. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) ACR 151  (b) Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) ACR 352  (c) Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2009 decided on July 1, 2014 by the Apex Court 10.
(2) I.L.R. 

(1911) 33 All. 51. 

(3) I.L.R. (1906) 29 Mad. 333. (4) I.L.R. 

(19271 Lah. 384. 

(5) A.I.R. 1962 Orissa 141. 

given on the merits, as for example, where the appeal court holds that the trial court had no jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal even though the trial court might have dismissed the suit on the merits.)
According to him, as per the merit list prepared by the Commission and recommended to the State Government, the following 6 S. C. candidates were recommended by Commission for appointment to the Class-1 post :
Sl. No. Merit No. Name Marks   
 
  
   
   

1. Gunvantrai C. Vaghela   
   
   

2. Rajendrabhai K. Parmar   
   
   

3. Jagdishbhai H. Sarwarkar   
   
   

4. Amrutbhai B. Parmar   
   
   

5. Manojkumar L. Makwana   
   
   

6. Bipinchandra M. Parmar
On the basis of the complaint of Mohammad Sabulal © Sabulal, Chamarajnagar Town, a criminal case came to be registered as Crime No.74/2004 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chamarajanagar Police Station, against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 307, 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code.
on 15th July 1949 another order was passed by the Chief Justice that all cases under the following Acts throughout Uttar Pradesh shall be heard at Allahabad and not at Lucknow :
1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 

2. Special Marriages Act, 1872. 

3. Indian Companies Act, 1913. 

4. Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. 

5. Indian Succession Act, 1925. 

6. Indian Matrimonial Cases (War Marriage Act, 1948.)
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1977 of the Rajasthan Tribunal Court in C.A. No. LC-3 1976. 

Soli Sorabjee Addl. Sol. Genl. (for the intervener in CA 2820), Anand Prakash, H. K. Puri & Lakshmi Anand Prakash for the appellants in all the appeals and applicant intervener M/s.
There was also s. 31 of the Amending Act of 1953, which made s. 34 of the principal Act (which meant the Income-tax Act as amended till that date including the amendments made by the Amending Act of 1953 in the second proviso to s. 34(3) ), applicable to any assessment or re-assessment for any year ending before April 1, 1948, where proceedings were commenced after September 8, 1948.
From the above discussion the following facts emerge :
 Part II Qptional Subjects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Maximum Marks: 150 Maximum Marks: 150 Maximum Marks: 150 Minimum Marks 45 Minimum Marks 45 Minimum Marks 45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHYSICS CHEMISTRY BIOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pager I Paper II Pratical Pager I Paper II Pratical Pager I Paper II Pratical 24 55 48 33 50 48 35 52 42
As scheduled in the tender notice, the bids received were opened on 25.07.2009 at 4.30 p.m. and the amounts quoted, in so far as it is relevant, are as follows: (1) Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22631/2009 - Rs.1,03,32,000.00 (2)Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21443/2009 - Rs.1,01,05,555.00 (3) Sri.Baburajan V.K. (4th Respondent in W.P.(C)No.22631/09 & 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21443/09) - Rs. 95,00,000.00 WPC .Nos.21443/09
He      also submitted that the provision in D.C. Regulation 16 regarding public interest      1 Decided on 10th August, 2011 in WP No. 840 of 2011     2 AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)




                                                            
     KPP                                      -14-                                    WP No. 2859 of 2006     cannot   be   construed   in   any   other   sense   and   the   said   Regulation   is   to   be                                                                                            
    interpreted   by giving appropriate meaning of public interest as mentioned in                                                                    
    Regulation 16.
Looking to the rival contentions of the parties, the first point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the land in dispute was in exclusive possession of the deceased Balu and the accused-appellants Jeeva, Bhanwar, Gopiram, Hanuman and Kana s/o of Balu, or half of the land in dispute is in possession of the informant Prabhu PW 8 and his brother Heera. 

27.
It  is not the practice of Courts to decide in a writ  peti-        tion  disputed  questions  which	 cannot	 be  satisfactorily        decided without taking evidence.
       Rashid Ahmed v. Munsicipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566        and  K.	S. Rashid and Son v. The  Income-tax  Investigation        Commission (1954) S.C.R. 738, relied on.
       (2)  Tile  Indian  Evidence Act
M/s Rathore Investments Deposits 1,11,971   
   
 
  
   
   

3. 204/Ahd/1997 M/s Rathore Finance Co. 

Deposits 5,05,796   
   
 
  
   
   

4. 205/Ahd/1997 M/s Mahi Trading Co. 

Deposits 69,396
In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 446 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station seeks to quash the proceedings before the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (ACJM for short), Ernakulam, on the ground that the said proceedings have been commenced pursuant to Annexure - A1 notice issued by the Sub Inspector without any authority. 

 2.
It is also not stated by the accused if he had made an application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC or a criminal complaint CC No.250/13 ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAMESH SHARMA page no. 13 of Pages 19 U/s 200 Cr. PC in respect of the alleged offence done by said Raj @ Gajraj and Nitesh Kumar @ Vicky.
The articles recovered contained gold teeth cleaner Ex-14, Galpatia of gold Ex-17. gold Surliya Ex-18, Kara Ex-19, 7 gold buttons with chain Ex-10, gold chain Ex-22, gold watch Ex- 20, gold 'Churries' Ex-21 Gold Patri Ex. 11 pair of 'Lung' Ex-12, gold rings Exs. 15 and 33, 'Challa' Ex-16 and necklace Ex-34.
Unreported judgment dated 20/7/2011 in W.P. 5332 of 2004 delivered by Division Bench at Nagpur (to which one of us viz. J. 
 B.P. Dharmadhikari is party) considers a case where the vigilance cell report was in favour of petitioner and though claim of a scheduled tribe candidate was being looked into, research officer was found not associated with vigilance inquiry.
The mother lived separately, and two deeds were executed by which the two grandsons agreed to pay Rs. 15,000 per year to the mother, (1) (1940) 8 I.T.R. 236. 

(3) (1945) 13 I.T.R. 512. 

(2) (1938) 6 I.T.R. 206. 

(4) (1948) 16 I.T.R. 294.
In this behalf, our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court in K.V.Jesudasan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Crl.L.J. 637; H.C.P.No.1459 of 1999, decided on 23.4.1996; as also the H.C.P.No.1672 of 1998, decided on 17.3.1999, to the last judgment one of us (V.S.Sirpurkar, J.) was a party.
In the ordinary course, as a contrary view was being taken, the learned Judge would have referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench, but finding that the decisions in AVALA REDDY RAMAPPA v. STATE OF MYSORE, 1960 Mys.L.J.315 and JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BAGBAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT, are binding decisions, the learned Judge took a contrary view and decided the petitions on merits. 

10.
Ramaswami J., who gave the judgment in that case, Rai J. agreeing,with him, observed that the statement of law made by Dhayle J., in 1938 Pat 529 (AIR V 25) (P) was inconsistent with the ratio of the decision in 1926 PC 46 (AIR V 13) (A) and could not be reconciled with the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in 25 Bom 332 (PC) (C).
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that by not putting the question under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to the accused is not fatal to the prosecution and has relied on cases reported in 1989 RCC 343, Rijumal v. State, 1990 RCC 374, Laxmilal v. State of Rajasthan and 1973 (2) SCC 793 : (1973 Cri LJ 1783), Shivaji Sahab Rao v. State of Maharashtra.
In that case, a Division Bench of this Court considering the same G.O.Ms. No. 580 dated 20-10-1984 held as follows (at p. 1681 of Cri LJ) :-  
 "'The other lifers' mentioned in Clause 2(b) are those who, in the first instance, are sentenced to death and which sentence is commuted under S. 433, Criminal Procedure Code to one of imprisonment for life.
In compliance with this order, respondent No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- on May 3, 1976, vide challan No. 18 (Bank) dated May 3, 1976 and by his letter of the even date, he requested the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, to issue the Patta of settlement of the Jalkar for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 in his favour.
On 7.2.2011 and 8.3.2011, the first respondent issued a show cause notice for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 under the CST Act proposing to complete assessment among others on the products on which advance ruling was sought proposing to levy a tax on a net turnover of Rs.19,54,24,967/- and Rs.30,15,59,241/- respectively at the applicable rates.
That petition was directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 8th February, 1957, whereby its own earlier order dated 15th February, 1951, confirming the sale of malik-makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakh-pur, together with a house standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted. 
 2.
The following hundi loans were not investigated by the ITO : 
 Rs. 

 (a) Lakhmichand 15,000  
  
 (b) Narayandas 15,000  
  
 (c) Ramchand 10,000  
  
 (d) Narsumal 16,000  
  
 (e) Bhagwandas P. 

 10,000  
  
 (f) Mohan Singh 15,000  
  
 (g) Bhagwandas S. 

 10,000  
  
 (h) Dondaram 5,000  
  
 (i) Narayan Singh 20,000 The records should be examined carefully and investigations also completed quickly for taking action Under Section 147. 

 Asstt. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62 :
Mr.Chhotaray then relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda vs. itxa538.12 Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. Vol.135 ITR 546 in support of his contention that in order to qualify for deduction under section 37(1) certain conditions must be satisfied which included positive and negative tests inasmuch as expenditure must be in the nature of revenue and not capital expenditure.
It is her further contention that the complainant along with his wife and son-in-law and (husband of deceased), filed C.D.No.40 of 2003 before A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad making self same allegations of medical negligence and claimed compensation of Rs.one crore and after enquiry, the State Commission by a reasoned order dated 29-8-2008 dismissed the said complaint holding that there is no negligence on the part of A.1.
27. Bhajan Das Swami v. State of Punjab and others, 1977 SDWR 289, is a case in which appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor (Pathology) was challenged on the ground that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class-III) Technical Service Rules, 1963, inasmuch as, he did not possess the knowledge of Sanskrit of Shastri standard.
The High Court dismissed, in limine, the appellant's writ petition, under Article 226, challenging the proceedings dated March 30, 1985, of the Summary Court- Martial imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and a sentence of an year's rigorous imprisonment on the appellant. 

 2. Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signal Man in "4, Corps operating Signal Regiment."
To justify his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments Krishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs. D.G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 and Sajay Mishra Vs. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor 2010 (5) RCR (Cri) in which it was observed that failure to disclose the amount in ITRs or Books of Accounts of the complainant may be sufficient to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Act.
Introduction of the maxim "res ipsa loquitor" in motor accident cases has simplified the law of evidence to great extent but the introduction of "no fault" theory in motor vehicle accident cases and unlimited liability of insurance companies are found to be a social necessity.  
 6. Parliament following the 85th Law Commission Report had introduced Chap.VIIA to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 incorporating Sections 92-A to Section 92-E therein.
That one of his associates, namely accused No.12-Mohd. Hussain, resident of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh, deposited the amounts in his bank A/c. No. 0293010469883 of United Bank of India, Kaliachak Branch, Malda District; bank A/c. No. 91001009337929 of Axis Bank, Patancheru Branch, Medak District, of accused No.2-Mohd. Anwar Sheik and; bank A/c. No. 20048612045 of SBI Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, of accused No.3-Mohd. Anwar Sheik.
What prevailed upon the learned single Judge was the Patna High Court LPA No.1942 of 2016 order, dated 09.09.2016, passed in CWJC 14619 of 2016, wherein, in a similar subject matter, a direction was given that the petitioner should approach the District Magistrate, Kaimur, who shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner therein in accordance with law.
The first respondent has, however, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 4189, dated 17.12.1992 sanctioning only a sum of Rs. 591 towards reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his wife from 12.6.1991 to 19.6.1991 while he was in service in connection with the treatment taken by her in Apollo Hospitals, Madras.
According to Anita (PW/5), the incident took place at about 1-30 P.M., but in her report, the time of the incident has been mentioned as 2-00 P.M. while doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) says that the injured Roop Kunwar was brought at 2-00 P.M. and he referred her to District Hospital, Mandsaur at 2-05 P.M.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, it has been stated in para 4 that due to promotion of Sri S. P. Tripathi. a L. T. grade teacher, a vacancy occurred in the L.T. grade for short duration but "due to Imposition of ban on the appointment of teachers vide G. O. No. 3440/15-7-2-(6) 1992 dated 16th July. 1992".
On an application under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the levy of such interest, the Mysore High Court dissented from the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kishanlal Haricharan [1971] 82 ITR 660, and held that prov. (iii) to Section 139(1) also applied where the date fixed originally under Section 139(2) fell beyond the date specified in the proviso to the said sub-section.
For the purposes of awarding <span class="hidden_text" id="span_7">MACT No.337/12 Shri Maan Singh &amp; Anr. Vs. Shri Anil Jain &amp; Anr. Page 7 of 21</span> compensation under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act, claimants have to prove that the death or permanent disablement occurred due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle in question.
He submitted that as per the version of PW.3 Swinder Singh and PW.4 Kulwant Singh, the two eye witnesses, the alleged occurrence took place at 4/5 A.M. on 30.12.1993 and Hardial Singh (injured at that time) was taken to the Govt. Dispensary, Ghuman by them at 7/7.30 A.M. and he was medico legally examined at 9.30 A.M.
Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate appearing in one other petition in the meantime has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the provision under Section 68 (3) (ca) already repealed in the year 2001 by Repealing and Amending act, 2001 Time was given to the counsel for the State, Shri Krishna Chandra and Shri Mukund Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for confirming the aforesaid fact.
The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka.Coutt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and the provisions of the Civil P. C. 1908, shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Art. 226 (and/or Art, 227) and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules."
Defendant No. 1 filed the plaint in Title Suit 65 of 1950 on the 28th of July 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhurn at Suri impleading 'Dina Nath Tri-loki Nath a Hindu joint family firm carrying on business at Marufganj in Patna City, District patna Chouki patna' as would appear from Ext. 1 the plaint of the suit.
The points for consideration in the Criminal Appeals are:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against Accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 40?. 

ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting those accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and imposing life imprisonment on them?;
On 18-5-1964 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama, filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nandi-gama, what was described as a preliminary charge-sheet in Crime No. 40 of 1964 in respect of offences under Sections 147. 148, 323, 324, 325, 307, and 302 I. P C., against 18 persons named therein who were shown as accused Nos. 1 to 18.
However, in view of deviation made at the end of submissions, I have dealt with case of all the petitioners on merits without expressing any sense of condemnation a against petitioner No. 2 Madhavprasad Swami, a violator of the liberty granted by this Court at the time of dealing with his application for bail i.e. Misc. Cri. Application No. 1730 of 2000 vide order dated 5-4-2000, referred to herein above.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, accepted the assessed's contention that in view of the fact that the market value of the flats in 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, was available, there was no justification for not adopting the same in the case of the assessed and resorting to the market value in the case of 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, as done by the Income-tax Officer.
In fact, if ad hoc multipliers like 26, etc., are used for pre-14.11.1994 accidents and only maximum multiplier of 18 as per the Table is bound to be used for post-14.11.1994 accidents, there will be undue overpayment in regard to accidents prior to 14.11.1994, i.e., in the seventies or eighties, when survival rates were far less than in 1994.
Regulation 6(5)(iii) of Discipline Regulations is reproduced hereunder: 
 "(5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the Inquiring Authority forward to the Inquiring Authority :  
(i) XXX     
(ii) XXX      (iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the Articles of Charge are proposed to be substantiated."  
 36. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in para 35 of the counter
Therefore, on the 5th December, 1962, when the petitioners made their application under Section 16(3) of the Act, respondent No. 1 was the raiyat not only in respect of the area of .03 acre in plot No. 738 covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 2, but also the raiyat in respect of an equivalent area in the same plot covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 3.
Now as pointed out above, plot of land bearing survey No. 135, Hissa No. 10 (City Survey No. 1411/11), area 1164.40 sq. mtrs. was purchased by Shri R.B. Shah, the then sole proprietor of M/s Star Chemicals from M/s Jamnadas Vallabhbai Mehta against the payment of a purchase price and as mentioned in the report on title, a portion of factory building was also extending over its plot of land.
6.2E It may be noted that Mr.Nanavati, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 10 and 11 has relied upon one order of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 12 of 2002 in Company Application No. 290 of 2001 in the case of the Provisional Liquidator of the Piramal Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Palash Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and another decided by this Court on 28th June, 2002.
The assessee claimed expenses only under one head "Ink" Rs. 1,23,69,822 which would leave surplus of only Rs. 1,94,646 out of receipt yet assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 38.76 lakhs under the head 'Salaries', Rs. 17.32 lakhs under subscription Deposit Service Scheme, Rs. 9.13 lakhs on account of roller and plates, Rs. 9.89 lakhs on account of electricity, Rs. 18.86 lakhs on account of repair in Unit No. I.
Reference can also be made to the latest case law reported as Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Page 31 to 45 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/07.04.2015 Ajai Shankar Saxena Vs. School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education ID No. 461/04 Amritsar & Anr. (supra.) where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under :­ "8.
List of former witnesses consists of constable Shamshad Ansari P.W.3, Dr. K.K. Kanaujiya P.W.4, inspector, I.O Surendra Tiwari P.W.5, S.I. Shiv Prasad Chandra P.W. 6, constable Mohan Prasad Gupta P.W.7, constable Kamla Shankar Pandey P.W.8 and S.I. Makhan Lal Kanaujiya P.W.9.
He deposed in consonance with the facts disclosed in the initial part of this judgment;
 ● Sukhbir Singh (PW-2) - was the driver of the canter vehicle and he also deposed about the incident as propounded by the prosecution; ● Gurmeet Singh (PW-3), Clerk - He deposed that he remained posted as a Clerk in the office of the District Transport Officer, Ferozepur, from May, 1990 to June, 1995.
This writ petition appears to have been drafted on February 11, 2004 and on its filing, carne up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on February 13, 2004 when, while issuing notice to the State of Punjab, a direction was issued that "any action taken shall be subject to the result of this writ petition". 

4. Civil Writ Petition No. 3348 of 2004 (Ravdip Singh Atwal-Petitioner)
In Civil Revision No. 239 of 1977, Pyarsingh v. Dhansingh dated 4-10-1979, annotated in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Heeralal Ochhelal and Ors., 1980 MPLJ (SN) 14 it was held that the remedy of the co-heirs is not by an application but is by a suit.
The Rules of 1999 repealed by the Rules of 2014 w.e.f. 24 th December, 2014, therefore, from 03.04.2014 till 24th December, 2014, the Rules of 1999 were in force and under the Rules of 1999 the petitioners got registered themselves as Coloniser under Section 61-B of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the certificate was issued on 10.12.2013 by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sanwer who was the Competent Authority.
In judgement titled Geeta Vs. Bal Govind Rohtgi (Supra) relied by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 6 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J. Mehta, Judge Delhi High Court has referred to section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and observed that documents in the case are prior to the amendment 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2011.
The deposition of the brother Ram Swaroop (PW-2) is important because if the case of the appellant/defendant No.1 was correct that there was a partition in the year 1973 then, even Sh. Ram Swaroop would have got one of the properties, but Sh. Ram Swaroop who was having good relations with the appellant/defendant No.1, deposed that there was no partition in the year 1973.
That it was further revealed during the investigation that as per the instructions of accused No.17, accused No.25 established contact over phone with accused No.24, and that accused No.25 introduced himself to accused No.24 as Nayeem by concealing his original name; that accused No.25 used to send FIC notes to accused No.24, who in turn circulated the same in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi in association with accused No.23.
Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. 

Ltd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and eventually held thus: -

 "9.
prove the motive and extra-judicial confession by accused Nos.1 to 4 and 15. 

27. Pw--12 Narayanasetty is the father of it "Vijayendra (deceased) and he has deposed in his evidence about the motive that on 18.11.1995, Sujaya came in a scooter and told that Krishnegowda we -30" 

is calling Vijayendra and Siddegowda and took them towards the house of Srinivas.
The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the Judgment dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.36 of 2007 pertaining to FIR No.281/2007, under Sections 302 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, PS Ashok Vihar, titled as 'State v. Javed @ Sonu & Another' acquitting the respondents of the said charges.
The entire evidence against the appellant finds mention in the statement Ex.PW-1/A of Sangeeta PW-1, which is the First Information given to the police on the basis of which the FIR has been registered, as also the endorsement Ex.PW-32/A made by Inspector Ram Chander PW-32 under the said statement, which was dispatched from the place of occurrence at 6:30 PM for the FIR to be registered. 

3.
However, in Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., 1899 AC 143 at p. 157, the Earl of Halsbury explained its limitation in these words : 
 "Two propositions are quite clear, one that preamble may afford useful light as to what a statute intends to enact, and the other that if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous, no preamble can qualify or cut down the enactment."
The learned counsel contended that the respondent Jyotsana Sharda was unemployed at present, therefore, she must be granted interim maintenance and the Judicial Magistrate had fallen into an error by rejecting the prayer of Jyotsana Sharda for grant of interim maintenance and similarly the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon had also fallen into error by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and disposing of the same on merits.
Accordingly, IA No.12854/2015 is hereby disposed off with a direction that it is allowed for the appellants No.2 to 4 relating to offence under Section 325 of IPC and in the result the appellants No.2 to 4 shall be acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC in the light of the compromise, whereas the application of compromise is not accepted for the applicant No.1 Ashok.
Thereby, the Corporation terminated the services of K.B.Jagan Mohan (the petitioner in W.P.No.7764 of 2006) and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar (the petitioner in W.P.No.7765 of 2006); and confirmed the earlier termination from service of P.Venkaiah (the petitioner in W.P.No.19505 of 2006) and B.Kishan (the petitioner in W.P.No.20387 of 2006).
On 24 February 1989, the State Government passed two separate orders of detention under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act, directing the detention of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, the common petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 508 of 1989 and SLP (crl.) 2009 of 1989, and B.L. Mohammed Ali, the common petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 542 of 1989 and SLP (Crl) No 2117 of 1989.
While interpreting the expression 'in custody' within the meaning of Section 439 CrPC, Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Bench in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote18 observed that: (SCC p. 563, para 9) "He can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody.
In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the case of the appellant in paying the interest amounting to Rs. 2,04,744/- falls clearly within s. 12(2) of the Act and the conditions of the aforesaid provision being fulfilled the assessee was in law entitled to deduction of the amount of (1) 82 I.T.R. 648. 

(2) 1 00 I.T.R. 67. 

11-930SCI/77 Rs. 2,04,744/- under- s. 12 (2) of the Act.
, Shri Chatter Pal Singh, Kanoongo from Record Room, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli proved the mutation of estate in the name of plaintiff, cancellation of mutation, then re­mutation of the estate in the name of plaintiff.  

RCA U/o 41 CPC: "RCA Dismissed" Page 7 of 23 RCA No.22/2012: "Smt.Kamla Yadav V/s Bidhi Singh (Deceased) Thru L.Rs" DOD: 14.08.2014 10.
Writ Appeals Nos. 1142 of 1993 and 1224 of 1993 were filed by P.V. Krishnamurthy, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3546 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1993 and Writ Appeal No. 1210 of 1993 was filed by two of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 17279 of 1989.
But in order to make our order self-contained, we first propose to notice the facts as emerging from the pleadings and file Nos. SWL 99 LLD 77, SWL 111 LLD 76 of the Karnataka Government Secretariat and File No. IDA-5/CR-178/75-76 of the Office of the Labour Commissioner made available by the learned Advocate General at our request and then deal with the contentions that arise for determination.
All the three accused are accordingly found guilty and convicted for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC for causing hurt upon PW1 by means of dangerous weapon. 

 Announced in open Court on 11th February, 2014. 

 Dig Vinay Singh ASJ/Spl. Judge:NDPS(NW) District Courts/Rohini/Delhi State Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. FIR No. 364/07 Dtd: 11.02.2014 Pg. 12 of 12
hence, the order to the effect of the find that Rs.88,51,030/- is the istri dhan of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Anita Chaudhary, is not acceptable in law and is set aside, hence, is liable to be confiscated and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, is authorized to take possession over the same amount within thirty days, from the date of receipt of this order.
This Court has, however, affirmed the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1980 MP 106 wherein it has been held that insofar as the Public Premises Act deals with a lessee or licence of premises belonging to a Government company, the subject matter of the Act would be covered by entries 6, 7 and 46 of List III.
Further even PW1's testimony on oath regarding the death of Sh. Brahm Dutt occurring in the year 1937 and the plaintiffs having been born Suit No. 113/07 Sh. Mahender Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kushum Lata & Ors. 12/29 subsequent to the death of Sh. Brahm Dutt has gone unchallenged.
In Hamsa Vs.  Ibrahim (1994(1) Crimes 395 (Kerala) case,  it  has been held by Justice K.T.Thomas as follows:-

        "According  to the law of England "every person who is sui juris has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose whatever and that he can do so  when he  is  exercising  a  statutory  right no less than when he is exercising any other right".
Apparently, in view of reservation expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to the cases of Kishun Singh (supra) and Nisar (supra) in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad (supra), the question was referred for consideration to a larger bench and it is in this background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed itself in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 552 (SC).
The learned Judges further stated at page 135:---
 "In our opinion the combined effect of Section 28(3) and Section 5(7-C) of the Indian Income-tax Act is that the succeeding income-tax officer has a authority to pass an order upon the explanation of the assesee produced before his predecessor in office, if the assessee had failed to exercise his right under Section 5(7-C) demanding that the proceedings should be reopened.
The presumption under Section 114 (e) could only be nullified by  clear and  cogent evidence to the contrary (State of Haryana   Vs.   Anil Kumar, 2004 (1)  

 Punj. LR 69 , 
               Zeenat  Vs.  Prince of Wales & c, A 1971 P 43, Sheo Darshan  Vs.
                                                                                

Assessar, 5 OLJ 179)".


38
At this point, it would be apt to clarify that in view of the non-obstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Hereinafter `CrPC'] will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code.
In the separately decided appeal in another matter, it has been held that the possession of land of Shri Anil Kumar Goel is separate and distinct from the suit property and has nothing to do with the land in possession of defendant.  

RCA U/o 41 CPC: "RCA Dismissed" Page 18 of 23 RCA No.22/2012: "Smt.Kamla Yadav V/s Bidhi Singh (Deceased) Thru L.Rs" DOD: 14.08.2014 19.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 17th March, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Horwill and Balakrishna Ayyar JJ.) in O.S.A. No. 34 of 1947, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 18th April, 1947, of the said High Court (Clark J.) in the exercise of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court in C. S. No. 208 of 1940.
Suman Kumari Yadav Versus State & Ors 112. 7552/2010 (nil) Guman Singh Saharan & Anr Versus State & Ors 113. 7693/2010 (1403/10) Sangeeta Kumar Barodia Versus State & Ors 114. 8096/2010 (1701/10) Babu Lal Meena Versus State & Ors 115. 8694/2010 (2237/10) Saroj Kumari Goyal Versus State & Ors 116. 8912/2010 (nil) Sapna Khandelwal Versus State & Ors 117. 10296/2010 (3688/10) Saroj Versus State & Ors 118. 10356/2010 (3740/10)
Ex.D.34 is the Certified Copy of Writ Petition, Ex.D.1 is the Certified Copy of Verifying Affidavit of P.W.1 and Ex.D.2 is the Certified Copy of Vakalath filed by D.W.1-Sri.P.Nehru and D.W.2- Sri.R.Manjunath, Advocates on behalf of P.W.1 and her children, pertaining to that Writ Petition.
(iii) In the affidavit filed by him in support of the writ petition, Narayan Chandra Ghosh (respondent no.2 herein) referred to the factum of sanction of Pay Scale Nos.17, 18 and 19 to members of the service under ROPA 1981, recommendations made by the Third Pay Commission, the Scheme and averred that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of grant of Scale Nos.19 and 21.
Thereafter, CBI team alongwith the independent witnesses reached the office of A-2 at Pahar Ganj at about 07:15 pm; A-2 was available in his office chamber; Insp. Kailash Sahu, TLO introduced himself to A-2 and enquired from him about his role in de-sealing of complainant's shop; A-2 was unable to provide any reasonable explanation regarding conversation held amongst the complainant, A-1 and himself.
The quantum of compensation awarded under the abovesaid heads, cannot be said to be excessive, as they are duly supported by Ex.P3  Wound Certificate, Ex.P4  Medical Prescriptions, Exs.P5 and P11  Medical Bills, Ex.P6  C.T.Scan Report, Ex.P10  O.P.Chit, Ex.P12  Trip Sheet, Exs.P13 and P14  X-Ray and its receipt and Ex.P15  Disability Certificate.
There is no quarrel with this proposition because we ourselves have analysed the evidence on the dictum of the five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court cited supra. 

 (iii) S.K.Yusuf v. State of West Bengal [2012(1)MLJ (Crl) 127 SC] This Ruling was cited in order to show that merely by discovery of the weapon from the information provided by the accused it cannot link the weapon with the crime.
He drew support on this point from the decisions in Shiam Sunder v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 128, Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam, (S) AIR 1957 SC 304, Lachhmansingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 Punj 522 and Udaram v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1960) 10 Raj 540.
Reference can be made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Arunesh Punetha Vs. Boston Scientific Corporation (CS(OS) 951/2004) decided on 25th August, 2005, where the Court after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court held, in relation to the above, as under:-
 "The ambit and scope of Order VII Rule 11 has always been a subject of detailed discussion by the courts.