AjayMukundS/Indian_Legal_NER_Dataset huggingface dataset:
The facts  about the  City Exchange urged and fresh evidence were decisive of a prima	 facie case for issuing process and it was an     exceptional     circumstance	justifying entertaining  the  second  complaint  and  not	to permit the trial of the case in such circumstances would be a denial of justice.
     Kumariah v.  C. Naicker, A.I.R. 1946 Mad, 167 and Ramanand  v. Sheri,	 I.L.R.	 1.  56	 All  425,
referred to.
In any view of the matter, on the authority of Hemanta Kumar v. S. N. Mukherjee, 58 Cal WN 1: (AIR 1954 Cal 340) and Damo-dhar Valley Corporation v. Provat Roy (1956) 60 Cal WN 1023, I hold that the order must be held to be effective from 14-9-1964, if not from 8-9-1964.
The other cases that take the same view are Megha Ram v. Makhan Lal, 67 Pun Re 1912: 130 Pun Re 1916: (AIR 1917 Lah 135); Kaju Mal v. Salig Ram, 91 Pun Re 1919: (AIR 1919 Lah 222 (2)); Ganda Singh v. Bhan, AIR 1923 Lah 310, and Hazari v. Neki, L. P. A. No. 13 of 1965, dated 27-7-1965: (AIR 1966 Punj 348).
The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Krishan Gopal PW1, Amar Singh PW2, Gurdev Singh PW3, Mukhtiar Singh PW4, Karnail Singh PW5, Jangir Singh PW6, Sukhdev Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8, Bikkar Singh PW9, Harcharanjit Singh PW10, Chamkaur Singh PW11, HC Ajaib Singh PW12, ASI Darshan Singh PW13, SI Sarabjit Rai PW14, C. Davinder Pal Singh PW15 and Sukhvinder Pal Singh PW16.
Proceeding further, the Court held : "The term 'authorities' occurring, in Art. 12 could only mean a person or a group of persons who exercise the legislative or executive functions of a State or through whom or through the (1) A.1,R. 1954 Mad.67. 

(2) A.T.R. 1964 Mysore 6. 

 instrumentality of whom the State exercise its legislative or executive power."
In the light of the aforesaid relevant entries, as they stood then, a Constitution Bench of this court in The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors., 1963 Suppl.(1) SCR 112, speaking through J.C.Shah, J., for the majority, had to consider whether the State Legislature could impose an exclusive medium of instruction Gujarati for the students who had to study and take examination conducted by the Gujarat University.
In the bye laws of Mission/Society, which is called "Memorandum of Association" submitted to Registrar along with registration on 2nd July, 1945, it was mentioned that the name and cadre of society is "Guru Shree Ram Chandra Ji, Fatehgarh, U.P." who was founder of Sahaj Marg system of attaining spiritual perfection but the society is being founded by Mahatma Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur.
Lastly, reliance is placed on the passages occurring at pages 5, 78, 35, 48, 49, 57, 68, 50, 63, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 91, 148, 149, 156, 189, 220 and 221 as showing that a political assassination in such circumstances is justified and praise worthy and that even bloody action of revenge against Pakistan and against those who are Pakistanis at heart is justified and would be praiseworthy.
With respect to the second charge of irregularities in his official duties, the petitioner complains that when he wanted to cross-examine all the five witnesses two of them viz., Sundararn and Subrah-inanyam Sastry, were no; produced for cross-examination, nor any reasons assigned therefor and that a fresh witness, Simhadri, was examined without previous notice to him, which deprived him of an opportunity to effectively cross-examine him.
Coming now to the notification No. 6822-J, dated 20-12-49 accepting the resignation of Mr. N. C. Basu, it states as follows:  
 "The Governor has been pleased to accept with effect from 16-12-1949, the resignation tendered by Sri Narayan Chandra Basu from membership of the Special Tribunal constituted by the Government of India, War Department Notification No. 1322 dated 23-9 1943, as subsequently amended."  
 79.
On behalf of the State, reliance is placed on (1) Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Another V. State of Maharashtra and others 1996(6) SCC 405 (2) Union of India and others v. M.V. Valliappan and others AIR 1999 SC 2526 (3) R.K. Garg V. Union of India and others AIR 1981(4) SCC 675 (4) Kandige Sham Bhat and Ors.
In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Aggarwal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another26 (para 10 & 11); Guman Singh (supra) and of this Court in the case of M/s Neogy & Sons. and others vs. State of M.P. and others27 (para 6 & 8 to 10). 

21.
(13)  Som  Datt	 Datta v. Union of India &  Ors.,  [1969]  2 S.C.R.	177; (14) Bhagat Payyavula v. The Union of  India  &
Ors., [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302; (15) Siemens Engineering &  Manu- facturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., [1976]
Supp.  S.C.R.  489; (16) Associated  Cement  Companies	Ltd.
v.P.N. Sharma & Anr., [1965] 2 S.C.R. 366; (16) A.K. Kraipak JUDGMENT:
ferred to.
On March 28, 1962, the process-server, Bhorilal, submitted his report which, on translation, reads as under :  
 "I went to the house of Swaroop Lal Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari and Jhumarlal Swaroop Lal Govind Narain Tiwari with notices, under Section 34 for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1948-49, to the house of Swaroop Lal Kanhaiynlal (sic)
On considering the testimony of witnesses coupled with the documents filed on record, it is established that Sonu Tiwari @ Somnath suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 26.11.12 at about 8.00 PM at Bata Mor, near Milan Vatika, NH­2, Faridabad involving vehicle bearing no. HR 29 Y 0134 by Satinder Kumar/respondent no.1.
Dr. S. K. Kaushik PW 3 has deposed that at 1.40 A. M. during the night intervening 22nd and 23rd July, 1986 he recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/104 of the injured Jetha Ram in the Bhartiya General Hospital, Churu in presence of Dr. Rakesh Bhargava and he got the thumb impression of Jetha Ram on it at place X.
A1 on the other hand, has asserted that he had absolutely no connection either personal or CBI Case No.14/11 RC no. AC­1/2000/A 0002/CBI/SPE/ACU­1/New Delhi CBI Vs. Dr. P. Das Gupta & Anr. 

 professional, with Serdia Pharmaceuticals and it is A2 alone who was responsible for arranging the initial payment for upgradation of tickets and therefore she received the refund of the economy class tickets.
As per 22.56 PPR Chapter XXII, Volume No.3 (Page No. 927) this register may be destroyed seven years after the date of last entry (Reference in this regard is also made to SO No. 64 dated 1.11.1998 according to which Kalandras under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C., inquest and offences punishable under provisions of Section 80 to 96 D.P. Act 1978 can be destroyed after seven years)
In pursuance to directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 04.08.2015, a review meeting was held with the representatives of Concessionaire, Lenders, IE, RO and PD of above project in NHAI on 05.08.2015 under chairmanship of Member (Fin) at NHAI HQ, New Delhi to review the status of work, balance work and means of finance to complete the project.
The defendant relies on an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in APOT No. 780 of 2002, APO No. 528 of 2002, GA No. 741 of 2002, GA No. 1003 of 2001, CS No. 217 of 1989 (Deepak Prakash v. Jayanta Kumar Bose) delivered on June 16, 2004.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 - Management by referring the letter dated 11th June, 2013 (addressed to Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nasik) and another letter dated 19th June, 2013 (addressed to Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nasik) submits that Respondent No.2 have responded said letters and justified their action.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement of the learned  Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District at Vellore (FTC) passed in SC.No.112/1998 dated 17.5.2002, convicting the Appellants  for the offences under Section 304(B) of IPC and sentencing them to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.
		For Appellant 	:	Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan 		
		For Respondent
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v.Biram Lal, (2005)10 SCC, 714, the Supreme Court again took the view that non-production of Chemical Analyser's report may at best deprive the prosecution of the corroborative evidence but where other evidence is sufficient, it would not in any way prejudice the case of the prosecution particularly when the evidence of the prosecutrix is duly supported and corroborated by other witnesses. 

 20.
Thus in relation to the assessment year 1949-50 (T. R. C, No. 233 of 1956) no portion of the disputed turnover, Rs. 2,16,550, is liable to be taxed, neither Rs. 1,27,765, which represented only labour charges, nor Rs. 73,627, which represented contracts which did not involve any sale of spare parts separating nor Rs. 15,158, which represented die value of what has been referred to as the "fabricated" parts.
So far as the former contention Under Section 95(2)(b) is concerned, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Motor Owners Insurance Company v. J.K. Modi and in M.K. Kunhi Mohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty explaining the difference between the claims Under Section 95(2)(a) and claims Under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The petitioners contended that petitions are maintainable having regard to the principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in DWARKADAS MARFATIA & SONS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, and MAHABIR AUTO STORES v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, SRILEKHA VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF U.P., 1995 AIR SCW 1613 and INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SADHANA AGARWAL, . 

13.
Sessions Case is registered on the strength of the charge-sheet filed at the conclusion of investigation of F.I.R. registered on 29-10-1998 by C.B.I., Mumbai vide C.R. No. R.C. 3(S)/S.C.B./98-Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 365 of I.P.C. C.B.I., Mumbai on investigation, charge-sheeted five numbers of accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 364 and 201 of I.P.C.
After registering the complaint in crime No.79/2011, the PW-11 has sent the FIR report as per Ex.P.17 to his higher officer and also to the court and further on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and in the presence of panch witnesses namely Smt.Shashirekha-CW-1, CW-15- Chandru, CW-16-Subbanna and he has drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and also collected the bloodstained mud and also plain mud.
On 12-1-1998 the Division Bench consisting of their Lordships B. Subhashan Reddy, J., and G. Bikshapthy, J., passed the same order and at the instance of APSRTC the Division Bench consisting of their Lordships P. Venkatarama Reddi, J., and A. Hanumanthu, J., passed the order dated 29-4-1998 referred to above.
The observation of Sanderson C. J. in the case of Mozahur Ali v. Emperor, 27 Cal WN 99 : (AIR 1923 Cal 196) that Section 342 Cr. P. C. contemplates that the object of the examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. is to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him has never been disputed in any case.
When the respondent-landlord took out execution proceed- ings  for  ejectment of the  appellant-tenant,	he  objected under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending	that the  decree passed by the civil court was a nullity, as	 the premises  in  question	was governed by	 the  Haryana  Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 11 of 1973.
As aforesaid, on the basis of the complaint (Exh. 39) lodged by Bapu Bhosle, Police Head Constable on 2-10-1991, First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Tahsil, Sub-division Kotwali, District Nagpur bearing Crime No. 448 of 1991 on 2-10-1991 at 7.10 p.m.
(1999) 6 SCC 667 = AIR 1999 SC 2979 = (1999) 5 JT 237, in which it was, inter alia, observed as under :
 "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has been given the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto and Habeas Corpus for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or for any other purpose.
(PER B.R.GAVAI, J) The State of Maharashtra has approached this Court being 2 Criminal Application No.258.13 (APL) aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First th Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 683 of 2013, dated 30 March, 2013, thereby directing investigation to be conducted as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint filed by respondent herein.
The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. H. H. Smt. Chand Kanwarji (supra) held that the scrutiny note of Revenue Audit constituted "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act because the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India was empowered by statute to scrutinise the proceedings of the Income Tax Department and to point out defects and mistakes which adversely affected the Revenue.
Our particular attention was drawn towards the view expressed by Hon'ble Tulzapurkar, J. (dissenting and minority view) at pp. 114 and 116 : 
"The material provisions in regard to the computation of income of an assessee under the head 'Profits and gains of business' are to be found in ss. 28(i), 29 and 14(1) but these have to be read subject to s. 5 of the Act.
It was, however, urged that the view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Mankad, J.) was a party, in Criminal Appeal No. U40-A of 1978 decided on August 11/12, 1980, was directly in conflict with the above decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No, 782 of 1977 and other decisions of this Court wherein similar view has been taken.
As regards respondents contentions that in the absence of attornment from Smt. Lalita Devi to him, petitioner was not entitled to claim rent arrears, ld. ARC relied upon a Supreme Court judgement reported as " Mahendra Dass Gupta vs. Vishwa Nath Bhikaji Mogul AIR 1997 SC 2437" and held that attornment by tenant was not necessary though desired to confer a validity to the transfer of landlady's right.
Mr. Mehta further submitted that once the said conditions are fulfilled, then the Income-tax Officer is under an obligation to register the firm and in support of it, he referred us to a decision in the cases of Agarwal and Co. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 10 (SC) and of Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720 (SC).  
63.
The report Ex. P/105 of the Forensic Science Laboratory read with the letter Ex. P/103 of the Superintendent of Police, Churu to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur shows that Baniyans Articles 17 and 18 of the accused Rajudas and Mahaveer respectively and the Barchi Article 20 recovered the instance of the accused Rajudas through recovery memo Ex. P/83 had blood of 'B' group.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 

 Prayer is allowed. 

 The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. 

 (RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
 Criminal Appeal No. 548/2010 25.02.2015 None for the appellant. 

 Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In C.S. No. 343 of1992 in the Application Nos. 226 & 227 of 1992, the plaintiffs prayed for aninterim injunction to restrain the respondents (defendants) from using, distributing, printing or causing to be printed the work as contained in Document Nos. (1) receipt and instruction manual, (2) guarantee card and (3) outer carton and the work as found in Document Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
On 18.10.2011 it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 that the sons Suit No. 17/14 Veena Solanki vs. Gopi Page No. 9 of 96 of the deceased from the wedlock of the respondent No.6 namely Surya Pratap and Shri Dev Singh had not been impleaded and the petitioner was directed to implead them.
These principles were reiterated in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2663 = (1994) 6 SCC 205 and again in State of Maharashtra vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC) = (1995) 5 SCC 659 = JT 1995 (6) SC 155.
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Nanasaheb Annasaheb Magar and Nagnath Baburao Magar are convicted under sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. and on each of the said counts, are directed to pay a separate fine of Rs. 100/- and in the event in default, of its payment, they shall undergo a separate sentence of one months R.I. under each of the two counts.
B.L.Avasya (PW/17) has also stated in para-33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 that Anita (PW/5) has not told him in her statement (Ex.D/5) that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.
The learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 had argued that the said judgment relied upon the over ruled case of Daddo Atmaram Patil v. Raghunath Atma Ram, AIR 1979 Bombay 179 and was per in curiam the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of amended Section 16 (3) of The Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore was not applicable.
So, except the fact that H.No. A­129, Sector­55, Noida, was taken on rent by accused Aman Bhardwaj, prosecution has not been able to prove any other fact from the deposition of this witness. 

 PW11 Bhisam Singh, who is brother of PW10 Sant Ram Yadav, has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner about the disclosure of accused persons regarding committing murder of Sanjay Gupta.
Reliance was placed on the following decisions :
(i) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra)
 

(ii) Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra)
 

(iii) CIT v. Mogul Lines Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 590 (Bom)
 

(iv) Suitej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC)
In the case of State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (supra), which was a case of custodial death, the Supreme Court considering the mitigating factors and long lapse of time and interest of the heirs of the victim, respondent No.1 Shyam Sunder was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- i.d., RI for further two years.
22.In the present case, from the scrutiny of the record of the committing court, it transpires that in execution of the warrant of arrest issued by the committing Magistrate on 28- 7-1988, the Air Force Authorities had themselves delivered Nachhattar Singh, appellant, to the custody of ASI Daljit Singh PW 15 who had carried the said warrant issued by the competent Magistrate, for execution on 10-8-1988.
This application has been moved on behalf of appellant Arun Kumar Parikh, Deputy Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, under section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 3948 of 2004 (M/s. Prashant Glass Works Vs. Bank of Baroda), under section 420 IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, Varanasi.
Counsel for the plaintiff in considerable measures and there is another witness Smt   -: 11 :-
 Kunti, who is DW­2, in the matter and her evidenciary affidavit dated 14.07.2015, has been tendered in evidence and she has proved the same as Ex DW­2/A and her signatures at point A and B thereon, however, these three witnesses have not proved any documents in their testimonies, which are available on record. 

11.
Sabyasachi Mukharji,J., in his opinion, discussed all the relevant cases on the subject including Morvi Industries Limited and Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. as well as the derision of this Court in Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. and stated the proposition emerging therefrom in the following words:
 "(1) It is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable.
The petitioner had received from the respondent an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/­ at the time of creation of the tenancy of the said shop, but the petitioner has not specified this material fact under any paragraph of his petition despite the fact that he has filed some receipt signed by him regarding payment of Rs. 45,000/­ and balance payment of Rs. 1,80,000/­ made on 07.05.1993.  

16.
In  the instant  case, neither  the Uttar  Pradesh High Schools and 223 Intermediate Colleges  (Reserve	 Pool  Teachers)  Ordinance,
1978 (U.P.  No. Ordinance 10 of 1978), nor the Uttar Pradesh High  Schools	and  Intermediate   Colleges  (Reserve	Pool Teachers) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978),	infringed   Article  14	 or  Article  16(1)  of	 the Constitution or was unconstitutional or void.
The case was that the deceased had two wives, namely Appellant No. 1 Smt. Shakun Bai and respondent No. 1 Smt. Siya Bai and from appellant No. 1, Smt. Shakun Bai, the children born were three daughters and one son who are appellants 2 to 4 and respondent No. 4 and from respondent No. 1, one daughter respondent No. 2 and one son respondent No. 3 were born.
By consent, heard finally at       this stage. 




                                         
     2.
                         
                    Kuljinder   Singh   Ahluwalia,   Plaintiff   (Appellant   herein), 
                        
     filed   a   Suit   for   declaration   that   33,24,400   shares   of   M/s.   Mukat       Pipes   Limited,   Defendant   No.4,   Respondent   No.4   herein,   are   the        

     property   of   M/s.
The connected suit, O. S. No. 44 of 1950, was filed by Venkatanarasayyamma, Rajamani alias Mahalakshamma and Lachamma, who are defendants 2, 3 and 1 respectively in the other suit, for a declaration of their title to and possession of the plaint scheduled property which was attached under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M. C. No. 2/1941 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Bhadrachalam.
The further case set up by SI Trivedi, respondent No. 1, incharge of the police station was that after making a Roznamcha entry at 7.00 a.m. about his departure from the police station he (respondent No. 1- Shyamsunder Trivedi) and Constable Rajaram respondent proceeded to the spot where the dead body was stated to be lying for conducting investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
I may usefully refer to the observations Of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd., 1897 AC 22 (F): 
 " 'Intention of the Legislature' is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied In positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it.
(8) I have considered the rival contentions and also the relevant authorities placed on record by both the parties which are as under:

 1. Muhammed Kassim Abdul Sathar Sait Vs. Hajee Bahiman Hajee Ismail reported in AIR (37) 1950 Travancore Chochin    2. Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2010 (2) SCC 144. 

Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr.
On 8th October, 1980 the basic minimum cane price, for the season 1980-81 was fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food, Government of India, New Delhi, under Notification No. G.S.R. 576-B (Ess. Com./Sugarcane), at Rs. 13 per quintal linked to a recovery of 8.6 per cent. or below with a premium of Rs. 15.2941 paise per quintal for every 0.1 per cent.
The Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. C.I.T.(2) observed, while considering the import of s. 2(15) of the 1961 Act:
 "It is one of the fundamental principles in legislation and the drafting of statutes that the provisions contained therein should be clear and cogent and, more so, with regard to the fiscal statutes which impose a burden on the public.
The petitioner has further levelled allegations against Prof. Sidhu-respondent No. 3 that he was annoyed by a note appended by her in her capacity as Senior Legal Adviser inviting the attention of the Chairman to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, 1 in a bid to apprise the legal position.
The Ministry of Defence issued Army Instruction No. 241 of 1950 styled as 'Seniority of civilian employees in lower formations', which provides that in accordance with the orders contained in para 2 of Ministry of Defence O.M.No. 0240/6362/D-12 dated September 1,1949 published as Annexure 'A' to this instruction, seniority of persons employed in a particular grade is to be determined as indicated herein.
Shri Awasthi submits that the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case reported in 2002 (1) MPLJ 458 (Dharamraj Singh vs. Vaidya Nath & Ors.) and 2002 (1) MPLJ 489 (Shabbir Hussain & Ors. vs. Naade Ali & Ors.) opined that for seeking relief of declaration and injunction, the suit is to be valued "according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued".
Some very drastic provisions are contained in Sections 9 and 10, but Mr. Mukherjee rightly pointed out they involved no discrimination, since exactly similar provisions had been incorporated in the General Law by Ordinance VI of 1946, promulgated on the same date as Ordinance 7 of 1946 and since, for reasons already explained, that Ordinance, being subject to no time-limit, remains valid and effective to this day.
The response of Dalmia Resorts through A3 by email dated 22.12.2012 is that they received the email supra seeking extension upto 31.12.2012, that is thereby accorded as a last and final date with no any further extension, failing which as per clause 7 of the agreement reproduced and point No.9 of his email dated 30.11.2012 the complainant/vendee has to forego whatever advance he paid.
As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated, re-affirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court:
 1. Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292  2. Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 

 (2010) 12 SCC 254
Bye-law 4(2) of the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 enjoins that every application for building permission shall be accompanied by the following as proof of ownership: 
 (a) attested copy of the original sale/lease deed; and    

 (b) attested copy of the Revenue Survey Sheet/Municipal Survey Sheet with mutation record number; or    

 (c) affidavit or other documents acceptable to the Commissioner, MCH.
The mere fact that an eviction petition jointly filed in 1982 by Petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA or that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRCA was filed in 1976 by Shri Devi Dayal Mehra and Petitioner No. 2 Shri Jai Dayal Mehra both of which ended in dismissal will not preclude the present Petitioners from again seeking eviction on the same ground.
In W.P.(C) No.18167/2010 the challenge is   against the addition of Elathur, Cheruvannur-Nallalam and Bepur Grama Panchayats to Kozhikode Corporation, in W.P.(C) No.18543/2010 the challenge is against the addition of Cheruvannur-Nallalam Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation and in W.P.(C) No.19508/2010 the petitioner challenges the addition of Bepur Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation.
But even if it be held that this Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the fundamental rights of members of a Co-operative Society guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (c) are even indirectly infringed by the impugned provision, in my opinion the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees' Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Deputies), Bombay, AIR 1962 S. C. 171, is a complete answer.
The validity of the Government Notification W.P (C) Nos. 38400/2010, 5546 & 9142 of 2011, 2544 of 2012, & Crl.M.C Nos.6531, 6562, 6569 of 2013 & connected cases under challenge, and the amendment made to Rule 9 (2) was upheld by this Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala[2011 (1) KLT 886].
It was also averred in plaint that firm M/s Lakhi Ram Mahi Lal was inducted on 02.09.1970, one other tenant Samman Oil & General Mills was inducted on 20.03.1970 and M/s Indraprastha Finance Company was inducted on 16.09.1970 whereas the sale proclamation of property was ordered on 21.07.1970 and the date of auction was 25.09.1970.
Shri H.P. Shah, who appeared for the assessee M/s Abhishek Packaging Industries and others in ITA No. 3152/Ahd/04 and others, adopted the arguments advanced by Shri SN Soparkar, Senior Advocate and further relied upon the decisions in the cases of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 71.-TTJ-328 (Mum) and Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. 68-TTJ-862 (Ahd).
The said Misc, Case was also dismissed for default on 24th Sept., 1981 and on Nov. 21, 1981, an application under Order 9, Rule 4, read with Section 141 of the Civil P.C. and also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was made by the defendant petitioners for recalling the said order of dismissal dt. 24th Sept., 1981 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1981.
19 Mutatis mutandis PW5 Ct. Rajesh has also deposed on <span class="hidden_text" id="span_15">SC No.13/2011 State Vs. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 15 of 36</span> the lines of PW12 Inspector Sajjan Singh and PW6 HC Suresh regarding arrival of accused on motorcycle No.DL 8S AG 5088, firing at HC Suresh by him, recovery of countrymade pistol and three live cartridges from accused.
The petitioner, by the communication dated 19.05.2000, conveyed its unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter dated 11.02.2000, except that in the said acceptance letter <span class="hidden_text" id="span_49"> Page 50 of 74</span> C/SCA/160/2013 JUDGMENT also, it invited the attention of the Kandla Port Trust to clause (9) of the original lease deed.
The petitioner in C. R. P. earlier filed W. P. No. 9164/86 questioning the validity of the provisions of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983), (hereinafter referred to as "Act 5/83") and the notification issued in G. O. Ms. 379 dated 9-8-1985 issued under S. 7 of that Act.
This notification was later on followed by another Notification No. F 19(23) Jud/66 dated 17ih July, 1967, whereby the State Government was pleased to appoint Shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge with his headquarters at Jaipur for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in the said Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act.
While he was walking on the road which goes towards Sardharpur gate, he saw that his son Hareshbhai was walking ahead of him and at that time, at the corner of the road, near Gigabhai's 'deli', the accused No. 2-Kirangiri, the accused No. 3-LaIitgiri, the accused No. 4-Rameshgiri and the accused No. 5-Ashok attacked his son Hareshbhai.
The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act') was issued on 15.11.1996 vide notification No. F.10 (39) 96/LandB/LA for acquisition of lands measuring about 3604 bighas and 18 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi.
In Kumar Exports V. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

 To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the CC No.5756/10 M/s NAVRNG DISTRIBUTORS Vs. MANAV ARORA page no. 9 of Pages 16 complainant in a criminal trial.
Lord Halsbury L.C. speaking for the House Observed in Susannah Sharp v. Wake-field, (1891) AC 173 at p. 179: 
 'discretion' means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke's case'/according to law, and not humour.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 
11.
The first accused preferred Crl.A.No.2269 of 2008 from the jail, while undergoing imprisonment in pursuance of the impugned judgment, whereas the second accused preferred Crl.A.No.1663 of 2008 through an Advocate of his own choice and when the above appeal came up for admission, this Court, by order dated 8.8.2008 in Crl.M.A.No.1888 of 2008 suspended the execution of the sentence and bail was granted in favour of him.
Thereafter, 17.52 hectares of land were acquired by notification dated 7-11-2007 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in Revenue Case No. 30/A-82/06-07 but the remaining additional land could not be acquired because of objections of the land owners before issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act.
It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice <span class="hidden_text" id="span_55">CRL.A.Nos. 1455/2012 &amp; conn. Matters Page 55 of 70</span> refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried.
The trial court framed the necessary issues and recorded the finding that Smt. Shanti Devi-defendant No. 3 even though is the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiffs, had no competence to transfer the share of the minors in the grove in question without obtaining the permission of the competent authority as is contemplated by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
That C.M.A. was admitted on 28-7-1989 and on the same day in C.M.P. No. 10140 of 1989 this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said ex parte decree dated 26-12-1988 subject to the condition of his depositing Rs. 10,000/- on or before 15-9-1989 in default of which the petition would stand dismissed.
It has further been alleged that the accused/ appellant had failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests and demands of the complainant and after calculating the amount with interest the accused/ appellant issued the two cheques both drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of the complainant i.e. Cheque no. 905664 dated 24.03.11 of Rs.4,00,000 /­ and Cheque no. 905665 dated 24.03.11 of Rs 3,00,00/­.
On the basis of the observations of the learned ACMM, SI Vishal made an endorsement on the statement of Rajesh Sharma, made on 12.01.2011; and on 19.02.2011 first information report (FIR) No.82/11: copy Ex. PW4/B, under sections 323, 427 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at police station Mehrauli and investigation was taken up.
In the order impugned, the Managing Director, PSIEC, referring to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, concluded as under:
VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.03 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh <span class="hidden_text" id="span_6"> CWP No.18312 of 2013 7</span> "20.
Nachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda Road Hindaiya District Sangrur. 

 ... Petitioner Versus 1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail Singh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.
Of remaining four, three other Special Appeals were filed viz. Special Appeal No.741/2002 (Writ Petition No.2692/2000) by Smt. Nandini Kumari, Special Appeal No.742/2002 (Writ Petition No.2694/2000) by Smt. Gita Kumari and Special Appeal No.749/2002 (Writ Petition No.2695/2000) by Smt. Shree Kumari.
Brief facts relating to the ground No. 3 are that the assessee has made a total claim of Rs. 40.91 crores under travelling expenditure and in tax audit report, a disallowance under Rule 6D stood at Rs. 64.56,704, the AO observed that out of total travelling expenses a sum of Rs. 7,18,72.457 only has been taken into consideration by the auditors to quantify disallowance under Rule 6D.
Specific reference has been made to Krishena Kumar's case, supra, Indian Ex-Services League v Union of India, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association's case, supra, State of West Bengal v Ratan Behari Dey, Sasadhar Chakravarthy and Another v Union of India and Others, State of Rajasthan and Another v Amrit Lal Gandhi, State of Mysore and Another v K.N. Chandrasekhara.
(Vide The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. Management and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1227; Rama Kant Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1552 : Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Mohd. Usman and Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 152 ; Ved Prakash Gupta a M/s.
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh <span class="hidden_text" id="span_14"> CRA NO.D-445-DB OF 2005 -15 -</span> PW-12 (Ajit Singh) and some amount out of the said amount, which the deceased (Ranbir Singh) had received from Patran Sugar Mills was misappropriated by the appellant and a sum of `9500/- was recovered from him during investigation.
If these principles are applied it must be held that the failure of the appellant to bring on record respondents 8, 11 and 12 in C.M.P. No. 1990/72 resulted in the abatement of the appeal against Askar Nawab Jung the 1st respondent in the appeal, as was held in the order passed by the Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J., and Chennakesav Reddy, J., on 30-1-1974.
Counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.15228/2013 Mr. Amit Gupta on behalf of Mr. B.L. Agarwal & Mr. J.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent No.21 in CMA No.4379/2012, CWP No.15228/2013 & CWP No.15275/2013 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi REPORTABLE :-	 
1.
This precise matter came up for decision before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chagla, C. J. and Desai, J. in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. D. M. Vin, 1956-1 Lab LJ 557=(AIR 1955 Bom 463) where it was held: 
 "But what we are concerned with to decide is: where did the dispute substantially arise?
Out of them about 60,000 teachers were members of a registered society, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh"), the First Petitioner in the said Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978 in the Allahabad High Court and one of the Respondents in the Appeals and Petitions before us.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 18th January and 18 January, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 33OO of 1981 aud 4757 of 1982. 

 H.K. Puri, M.P. Jha and Sanjeev Walia for the Appellants. 

 S.K Bagga for the Respondent. 

 L.N. Sinha, A.K Panda and Ashwani Kumar for the Respon.
2.11 That the applicant-accused preferred a Criminal Misc. Application No. 9914 of 2013 before this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia, praying for quashing of the F IR dated 16.12.2011 registered with the CBI bearing FIR No. BSI/S.2011/0005 as well as to quash and set aside the Order dated 6.6.2013, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section-82 of the Code for proclamation.
Pursuant to the observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in Para-3 of the Order, the applicant accused preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.166 of 2013 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases Court, Ahmedabad, on 29.7.2013 and requested to release him anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR dated 16.12.2011 registered at RC.BSI/S/2011/0005/8353.
:   


(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) This is an appeal filed u/S.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 by the National Investigation Agency (for short, 'NIA'), Hyderabad, challenging the order dt.26.11.2012 of the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Sessions Court") in Crl.M.P.No.569 of 2012, vide Spl. Sc. No.1 of 2011 of CBI Police Station in NIA Cr.No.2 of 2011.
I have heard Ld. APP for State and Sh. R.M. Tuffail and Sh. M.C. Dhingra, counsels for all the accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced. 
Finding qua offence U/s. 364 read with Section 120B of IPC/U/s. 302 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC and U/s. 201 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC:
During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance) of Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance), proposal for sanction of Bills Discount Limits of Rs. 25.00 lacs each to 18 companies which are directly or indirectly associated/connected with Hemraj Mahabir Prasad (HMP) Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, as per An-nexure 'A' hereto.
The R.W.1 has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Respondent No.1 had issued Policy bearing No.10003/31/14/077897 in favour of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle TATA 1109 Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-70-D- 1803, valid from the period from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014.
In the cross examination of PW4 Sajikumar before the Commission the following was made as suggestions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18145 of 2013:-

 "On 25.11.12 at about 5.30 a.m, the petitioner went for a morning walk along with Sri.Bhasurangan and during that time he felt chest pain and after some time, at his instance, he was taken to his house in the car by Saji.
In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (supra) the majority judgment considered a catena of decisions on the point and it has been observed in paragraph-25 of the judgment (SCC p.129) that -   "the tests propounded by Mathew, J. in Sukhdev Singh were elaborated in Ramana and were reformulated two years later by a Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia.
] 2 S.C.R. 272; State of Orissa  v.
Dr.  (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625;  State of  West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] S.C.R.  284	 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621, relied on.
The report of PW­1 dated 29.08.2013 is on record as Ex.PW1/A, wherein she has explained the physical and mental condition of the child as under:
 U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: "Acquitted" Page 11 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015
The then Hon'ble Gajendragadkar, J., delivering the judgment on behalf of himself, Wanchoo and Dasgupta, JJ., considered the provisions of the the following observations contained in Paras 43, 50, 52 and 53 are very important for the purpose of considering the case in hand which read under:
... Article 301 applies not only to inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse but also to inter-State trade, commerce and in course.
The Bombay High Court was inclined to agree with the view of the Madras High Court in K. Rathnam's case [1969] 71 ITR 433 (Mad) and the view of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Jacob's case [1973] 89 ITR 88 and did not agree with the observations of this court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case [1973] 91 ITR 393.
By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ajmer s/o Arjun Singh Nunia has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.313/15 registered by Police Station Kanwan, District-Dhar for offence under Section 363, 366-ka, 366, 344, 506, 376 (2) (dh), 376 (2) (jh,) of IPC and S. 6(da) of POCSO Act.
In Jyni v. Raphel P.T. (2016 (2) KHC 870), after referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 (6) SCC 1), Shyamwati Sharma's case (2010 (12)   M.A.C.A.No.850/2016 SCC 378), etc., we have held that the conventional amount of 15,000/- awarded under the head loss of estate represents just and reasonable compensation.
At the gate of the Police Station, Inspector Darshan Lal (PW.17) met him, who recorded the statement (Ex.PB) of complainant Ajit Singh at 5.00 PM, on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PB/1) was registered against A-1 to A-3 at 5.10 PM, and the special report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate, which was received by him at 12.15 AM (mid-night).
Originally, when the appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009 was taken up for hearing on 17.12.2012, the learned senior counsel, who was appearing for the first appellant/accused Sekar, had submitted that the first appellant/accused Sekar was a juvenile as he was aged only 17 years 5 months and 15 days on the date of commission of crime i.e., as on 19.04.2007. 

111.
U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: "Acquitted" Page 5 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015 Q. Kya aap Sonu ko bhaiya ke naam se bulati thi ?
Similarly Anantakrishna Ayyar, J, Observed (at page 576) follows: - 
 "The question whether an appeal lies under Cl. 15, Letters Patent, against the judgment of a single Judge of the High court based on an appeal preferred to the High Court under O. 43, C.P.C. (corresponding to. S. 588 of the earlier Cqde) has been the subject of discussion in some cases in this Court.
4-9.In such circumstances, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Master resorted to pass an order on 07.07.2000 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, directing the Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.48 of 1997 to execute the deed of reconveyance to the decree holder and deliver possession of the properties within in one month from 07.07.2000 to the decree holder S.V.Matha Prasad.
[659B-C]
635      D.C.M. v.	Rajasthan State	 Electricity Board, [1986] 2 SCC 431, referred to.
     21.  Different   tariffs  for   High  and	Low  Tension Consumers and  for different  classes of consumers, such as,
Industrial, Commercial,	 Agricultural and Domestic have been prescribed and the differention appears to be reasonable and far from arbitrary and based on intelligent and intelligible criteria.
The Pi-ivy Council affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Ceylon, and made the following observa- tions in the course of their judgment, which would suggest that a dying declaration, if found reliable by a jury, may, by itself, sustain a conviction:
 (1) I.L.R. [1940] Mad. 158,170. 

 (2) A.I.R. 1941 Patna 409. 

 (3) I.L.R. [1945] Nag. 613; A.I.R. 1945 Nag. 153. (4) [I937] A.C. 220, 229.
In Muthukaruppan v. Raghavan - 2006 (2) KLT 996 a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has held that a complaint can be signed and filed and sworn statement also can be given by the power-of-attorney of the payee or holder-in-due course, but at the time of the trial of the payee or holder-in-due- course himself will have to mount the witness box.
These cases are :
(i) Baldeo Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 JT (8) SC 280 (The Baldeo Singh case). 

(ii) Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, JT 1995 (1) SC 593 (The Ram Reddy Case). 

(iii) Inder Singh v. Union of India, JT 1993 (3) SC 653 (The Inder Singh case). 

14.
In State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal - the Supreme Court has held as follows :
"As pointed out by this Court, the process of a substitution of statutory provision consists of two steps; first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. (See: Koteewar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. - ).
The prosecution case was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with accused Nos. 3 to 6 constituted an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to kill PW 6 Baharan Mian and in pursuance of the said object accused No. 1 caused the death of Sahana Khatoon aged about seven years and accused No. 2 caused the death of Chand Tara aged about seven months.
According to the plaintiff's case, defendants 1, 5 and 8 entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the common intention, Sri Chattar Sen (defendant No. 1) took leave from 27th to 31st December 1949, handed overcharge to Kedar Nath (defendant No. 5) on the 24th December 1949, as the Bank was closed on 25th and 26th December 1949.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I hereby order that insurance company is entitled for recovery rights from the insured/owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 2 but only after disbursement of the award amount to the petitioner in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh" (AIR 2004 SC 1531).