AjayMukundS/Indian_Legal_NER_Dataset huggingface dataset:
In this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee Messrs. Dayabhai & Co. of Barwani, the question posed for our answer is: 
 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57?" 
 2.
Considering the evidence on record I find that the accused has not brought any credible evidence to rebut the presumptions provided in Section 114, Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and further looking at the mandate given by the H'onble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Hazi Vs.Palapetty Mohd. & Anr
File be consigned to record room subject to furnishing of bail bonds u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. 

Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR) Court on 14.07.2014 MM­07, SOUTH EAST, SAKET, NEW DELHI, <span class="hidden_text" id="span_26">FIR No. 80/11 Page 26 of 26</span>
On the date of the incident, that is, on 05.09.2008 it must be about 8.45 p.m. that Happy (Tejinder Bawa - appellant in CRA No.1046 of 2011) and Suraj Ahluwalia (appellant in CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011), President of Shiv Sena, Bal Thakre and his Gunman Shammi Kumar came on a black colour Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10BE-4979.
On the same date, i.e., 19th April 1995, the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore made a request to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India to assist it in securing the provisional arrest of Rajan Pillai for the <span class="hidden_text" id="span_5">W.P. (C) No. 1894 of 1998 Page 5 of 48</span> purposes of extradition.
The tax in respect of contract carriages (omni buses) increased to Rs.1,000/- with effect from 1.4.1994; Rs.1,500/- with effect from 1.4.1996 and again to Rs.2,000/- by Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act No.27 of 1998) with effect from 1.7.1998.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 803, 863 and 871 of 2001 are by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22 and A-40, challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sec.148 IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment.
Another Division Bench in CWP No.4405 of 1998 titled "Manju Jain & another Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & others" decided on 02.04.1998 has followed the judgment in Aruna Luthra's case (supra) to return a finding that there is no provision in the Regulations to levy penal interest, thus, the levy of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was set aside.
It is the case of the complainant that upon her persistence, the accused persons, in partial discharge of their admitted debts and liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque bearing no. 402041 dated 17.6.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/­ drawn on Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar, New Delhi - 110002 in favour of Complainant"Fashion Link" signed by accused Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal.
With regard to the second point, it was contended before the AAC that as the return was filed on 7th August, 1963, and the assessment was completed only on 27th December, 1965, the ITO should have exercised his discretion to reduce or waive the interest under the provisions of Rule 48 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, or under Rule 40 of the I.T. Rules, 1962.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) be issued through Superintendent of Police,

Dhar to the respondents No.1 Sikandar and No.2 Aziz for a date to be fixed by the Registry to secure the presence of the respondents No.1 and 2, made returnable within six weeks.



      (P.K.Jaiswal)                    (Jarat Kumar Jain)
          Judge                               Judge ns.
                        W.P.No.1361/2013 14/12/2015              Parties through their Counsel.
All appeals of the State arising from the judgments of the learned District Judge dated 29.4.1995, 6.5.1995, 8.5.1995 and 8.3.1996 awarding Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre to the claimants are hereby partly accepted .and the claimants instead of Rs. 9,15,000/- would be entitled to get the above amount of Rs. 6,53,400/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
However, the learned member of the Tribunal did not accept the evidence tendered by the medical officer, Dr.Veeranna Satnoor (PW8) regarding his evaluation of physical disability at 40%, and has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future amenities in life, Rs.3,200/- towards conveyance and special diet and Rs.28,800/- towards loss of earning due to disability, in all, Rs.76,000/-.
On her cry a number of neighbours including Chandrama Singh (P. W. 3), Kedarnath Panday (P. W. 5), Jaddu Singh (P. W. 6), . Madheswar gingh (P. W. 7) and others who were all then at the house of Kedarnath Panday at a distance of 30 banses from the house of the appellant attending the recitation of the Ramayan rushed to the darwaza of the accused.
A notice was, therefore, sent by petitioners through an advocate to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 6th September, 2003 (Exhibit-G) i.e. to Mahasangh, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy) and Collector of Bombay, requesting them to start election process immediately by announcing election programme failing which the petitioners would take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Ministry of Finance reads as under :- 
F.No. 664/99/88 OPIUM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) dated the 27th September, 1989.  
 To Collectors of Customs (Preventive). 
New Custom House, 2nd Floor, Ballard Estate, Bombay-400 038 Sir, Subject: Authorisation of officers under section 36A(1)(d) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The petitioner Chandrasekharan and his younger brother Vembu Iyer claimed to have taken on lease a one-room tenement and a vacant site appurtenant thereto, forming part of the property acquired in this case, from the owner Kurshid Jan Pasha, husband of Ghousia Begum, and to have started in that portion a hotel business under the name and style of Raia Ganapathi Refreshment Stall.
The respondent no. 3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. has produced R3W1, its Legal Manager who has stated in his affidavit EX.R3W1/A that offending vehicle i.e. HR 38 R 7272 was insured in the name of Sh. Jai Jai Ram Yadav for the period 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012.
(nil) Subhita Kumari Versus State & Ors 50. 5550/2010 (nil) Naroj Versus State & Ors 51. 5578/2010 (nil) Vimala Devi Versus State & Anr 52. 5583/2010 (nil) Kum Komal Kumari Versus State & Ors 53. 5584/2010 (nil) Shiv Raj Nagar Versus State & Ors 54. 5595/2010 (nil) Poonam Muraria & Anr Versus State & Ors 55. 5607/2010
On 26.07.1998, accused no.1- Mapillai K.H.Sulaiman had engaged PW.2-Boja, PW.3- Paniyeravara Muthu, PW.4-Paniyeravara Baby and CW.5- Bera (not examined before the trial court) for plucking sweet potatoes in the land of one Prakash near Poojekallu of Kutta village.
In CWP No.10877 of 2008, petitioner Malkit Kaur, who contested the election for the seat of Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Burj Bhalai Ke, Tehsil & District Mansa and nominated herself for the seat reserved for Woman and secured 441 votes and was declared defeated, has filed this petition for quashing the election result of respondent No.4- Satnam Singh, who secured only two votes.
No.10735 OF 2010 1-YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL S/O LATE JAGANNATH PRASAD R/O SHIVPURI, PROFESSOR'S COLONY ROAD, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT.-
PATNA- 800023.............................................................(PETITIONER)
                             Versus 1-THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR,
These companies were as follows:
"i. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. 

ii. Hindlaco Industries Ltd. 

iii. Tranex Holding Inc. iv. Indian Minerals Corporation Plc. 

v. VAW Aluminium AG, Germany vi. ALCOA, USA vii. Sibirsky, Russia viii. MALCO" 

M/s Jardine Fleming, Global Advisor made an analysis of the various bids on the basis of the financial and technical capability, familiarity with India and overall credibility.
It is well settled that such conduct of the petitioners would disentitled them to any relief at the hands of this court (vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, Third Edn., page 140, para 265 : Rex v. Tabrum : Ex parte Dash [1907] 97 L. T. 551, O. A. O. K. Latchmanan Chettiar v. Corporation of Madras [1927] ILR 50 Mad 130; AIR 1927 Mad 130 [FB].
Sri Sundaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the Decisions of the Supreme Court in CHUNCHUN JHA v. EBADAT ALI AND ANR., RAVAL & CO. v. K.G. RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS., SMT. GANGABAI v. SMT. CHHABUBAI & RAJ KUMAR RAJINDRA SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.
The statement of the complainant after it was recorded was signed by him in English and it was attested by Sub Inspector ('SI' - for short) CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011 and CRA No. D-1046-DB of 2011 and -5- Murder Reference No. 6 of 2011 Ravinder Singh SHO, P.S. Division No.8, Ludhiana (PW-5) on 05.09.2008 in the area of Mini Fountain Chowk, Guru Nanak Pura at 11.00 pm.
Along with the affidavit a chart has been provided specifying the C.R. number, name of the complainant and the role of the accused. 

 C.R.No. Name of Role of the accused and status of Complainant the case. 

 I-26/2014 Shamjibhai Accused No.(1) Nareshbhai Geegabhai Ranchhodbhai Dudhat, Residing at 7, Priyanka Row DCB Police Dabhi.
Her concern was her younger son Harshit who had already been removed to the hospital by Sanjeev Narula PW-5, who is the <span class="hidden_text" id="span_6">Crl.A. 635/2007 &amp; Death Ref. 2/2007 Page 6 of 59</span> elder brother-in-law of Mukesh Sethi, the husband of Sangeeta Sethi.
Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi [(2009) 13 SCC 123 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 29 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 963] and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased,
As per the contents of Ex. PW5/B, PW6 Surender Kumar sustained injury on Right Parietal area and aright Supra Occipital area of his head and there were "deep penetrating cut on right parietal area and on right supra occipital area Sessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 27 of 32 of skull"; and seven stitches were given to him besides other treatment.
It is obvious that the decision in Sarvate T. B.'s case 1966 M.P.L.J. 26 was not brought to the notice of this court while deciding Smt. Kamla Soni's case A.I.R. 1969 N.S.C. 186. (Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 1966 dated 26th September, 1969) or else this court would not have landed itself in such patent contradiction.
It is submitted that a complaint dated 17.09.2011 was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat and in terms of the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., FIR No. 861 dated 24.09.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC was registered at Police Station Chandnibagh, Panipat.
This is an appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated the 28th June, 1979 of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil First Appeal No. 37-A of 1978, whereby it has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1977, of the Court of Third Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 8A of 1972.
In Juvvi Subbaramaiah and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a similar question and held : 
" As already stated, the two transactions in question are only a part of a larger activity of the assessee, and the other transactions were found to be admittedly in the nature of tejimandi contracts, prohibited outright by Section 19 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.
Per contra, Mr.Sathiyamohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the writ petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 420 I.P.C., as he cheated 16 persons by representing to them that he will arrange for securing jobs to them in Saudi Arabia and he had received Rs.1.40 lakhs in all, took those persons to Mumbai and left them stranded there and the petitioner absconded from the place.
In James Dunber Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen, (1877-78)3 App. Case 614, 623 JC Sir Robort P. Collier, speaking for the judicial committee of Privy council, used the phrase `the requirements of substantial justice', while in Arthur John Specman v. Plumstead District Board of Works, (1884-85) 10 App.Case 229, 240, Earl of Selbourne, S.C. preferred the phrase `the substantial requirement of justice'.
Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that an inadvertent mistake, which had occurred during the presentation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., wherein through oversight, statements of two eye-witnesses/injured, namely, Gurdev Singh son of Hari Singh and Teja @ Tejwinder Singh son of Rattan Singh, could not be attached with the report, although, both of them were cited as eye witnesses/injured and their medico legal reports were attached with the report.
------------ Profit & Loss Account for the year ended 31.3.1995 is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder:- ALOK NURSING HOME PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1995 INCOME SCHEDULE AMOUNT(Rs.) AMOUNT(Rs.) ------ -------- ----------- ------------ NURSING HOME CHARGES 3,839,830.00 CONSULTATION CHARGES 304,615.00 OTHER INCOME ------------ RENT RECEIVED 25,000.00 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 22,172.30 47,172.30 --------- ------------ TOTAL 4,191,617.30 ------------ EXPENDITURE ----------- BANK INTEREST AND CHARGES 82,224.74
Mr. Jethmalani, rightly drew analogy from the dictum in Paragraph 101 in the case of Union Carbide Corporation (supra) wherein it is observed that the President cannot be liable W.P. No.3346/2015 to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he in the discharge of the duties of his office; and for this purpose his person must be deemed, in civil cases, at least, to possess an official inviolability.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Bakshish Singh Vs. State of Punjab" (AIR 1971 SC 2016) and "Kanbi Karsan Jadav Vs. State of Gujarat" (AIR 1966 SC 821) in which it is held that the accused would have given an information and dead body was discovered on that information then it is not a conclusive proof against the accused.
The Ltatdguaghev.efnb1oyet:1 in Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civii Courts Aet_ 'statihg"e:'V_.tt{en the a1t1ount or vaiue of the subject matter of "._tZ.h€ o:'i.gt'h;9.1 suit or proceeding does not exceed Rupees Ten appeai shat} tie to the District Cotm', Clearly denotes that h ités the value of the subject matter at the origins} preeeectirzg that determines the appeliate fomm.
Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or <span class="hidden_text" id="span_22">CS No. 07/13 Page 22 of 35</span> operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards to or in immovable property.
It was further argued that RW-1 Inder Singh in his cross examination dated 28.09.2013 while admitting that respondent no. 1 Darshan Kumar is a tenant in the suit premises in his individual capacity went further in stating that respondent no. 1 Darshan Kumar is not residing in the tenancy premises since long and is residing at Rajouri Garden, BLK-189 (MIG) Flat.
It is further averred that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted another application dated 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality seeking for copies of (i) documents submitted by the 9th respondent at the time of the nomination in the month of September 2005 and (ii) Caste certificate filed by the 9th respondent at the time of filing of nomination.
Even Patna High Court CWJC No.17151 of 2014 dt. 19-04-2017 though, we find no case made out for allowing the prayer made by the petitioner for declaring second proviso of Section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act to be ultra vires; nor do we find any case made out for holding that recovery and imposition of entry tax on the petitioner by the impugned order is illegal.
Shri S.K. Jain, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, P.W. 6, has stated that he inspected the business premises of M/s. Roda Ram Lal Chand at Baba Bakala in Amritsar District, on September 2,1, 1963 and from those premises, the Dasti Bahi, ex. P.Y., was taken into possession by him.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)­05, (ACB), (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Corruption Case No. : 33/2008 FIR No. : 71/2006 Case Identification No. : 02401R0465682008 PS : Anti Corruption Branch Under Section : 7/8/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & 420 IPC STATE Versus Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Bhagat Ram R/o Village & Post Office Mundhela Khurd, Delhi ­110073.
the Apex Court has observed: 

                                 "3.   It   is   now   well   settled   legal   position                           that   the   Irrigation   Department   and   Tele­
                        communication   Department   are  not   an   `Industry'  
                        within   the   meaning   of   definition   under   the                           Industrial Disputes Act as held in  Union of India                           v. Jai Narayan Singh,  1995 Supp. (4) 672                                                                                   and in                                                                                           
                        State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma,  JT 1996(2)
                                                                         
                       455.
On 06.12.2003, a complaint was lodged at P.S Rajender Nagar by Sh. J.K. Gupta, brother of deceased to the effect that his brother Dr. R.K. Gupta r/o Apartment no. 89, Priya Apartments, Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi left his house at 10.00 am for his work place Sir Ganga Ram hospital on 05.12.2003.
20) According to Dr. Subhash Jain (PW4), deceased told to him that she got burnt while cooking food which he recorded in her pre M.L.C. Report Ex. P/4, whereas according to dying declaration Ex. P/8 recorded before him by S.R.Vishwakarma (DW1), deceased told that she got burnt while preparing tea on the stove and spreading of kerosene from the cane.
Straight lease transactions :
(1) M/s Kedia Distilleries Ltd. 

(2) M/s Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. 

(3) M/s Prakash Industries (4) M/s Carews Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 

(5) M/s Seethapur Plywoods Industries (6) M/s Patheja Forgings & Auto Parts Ltd. 

III.
Debabroto Mookherjee, G. S. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 1 tin Cr. A. No. 213 of 1968). 

Debabroto Mookherjee, P. K. Chakravarty, Prodyot Kumar Chakravarty, for respondent No. 1 (in Cr. A. No. 214 of 1968.).
7/ The same issue is involved in W.P. No.5625/2015 which has been filed by one Sharad Tikamdas Kabra seeking the writ of habeas corpus challenging the arrest order dated 20.5.2015 and raising the additional ground that the Special Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not the designated court under Section 43 and 44 of the PMLA and that the proceedings before the said Special Court are not competent.
On July 1, 1962 when PW 17 and his father PW 19, R. P. Dutt went to the field with PW 16, Gopal Das, PW 15 Nand Lal and one B. N. Acharya with a trac- tor to level the land, the appellants came armed with spears and lathis attacked the complainants' party and caused injuries to PWs 17 and 19 and the tractor driver, B. N. Acharya.
It has been proved from the testimony of PW3 and PW8 that specimen signatures of accused Neeraj Page no. 13 of 19 State vs. Neeraj Jain and others FIR No. 289/2010 Jain and original agreement deed were deposited Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL), Rohini, Delhi and thumb impression were deposited in Finger Print Bureau,Kamla Nagar Market, Delhi.
O.A. No. K-269 of 1988 was allowed by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated April 2, 1990 and the impugned notifications were quashed to the extent the amendments in Rule 2544 were given retrospective effect on the view that the said amendments in the rule in so far as the same were given retrospective effect were unjust, unreasonable and were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Versus   Sh. Ramesh Sharma, 
 S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh Sharma,
 Proprietor of M/s R.K. Computers & Technical Services,
 R/o C­140, Sector­50, 
 Noida (U.P.)                              .........  Accused.

COMPLAINT U/s 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT  Offence complained of                               :      U/s 138 N.I. Act  Date of commission of offence
During the visit the undersigned visited the following mills of SAPPI :  
(a) Godwana Mill Manufacturing Paper Pulp, Newsprint and Kraft Liner Board;  
(b) Saicor Mill Manufacturing dissolving grade pulp; and    

(c) Staryer Mill Manufacturing coated, tissue and mechanical paper.   
The Saicor Mill is the single largest plant in the world for production of dissolving grade pulp.  
(2) Zimbabwe (10th July, 1992 to 11th July, 1992)
The petitioners carry business inter alia as manufacturers of diverse kinds of fertilisers at their factory situated at Vishakhapatnam one of the fertilisers thus manufactured is Gromor NPK 14 : 35 : 14 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") excise duty was being imposed on fertilisers manufactured in India with effect from 1.3.1969.
We find that the report dated 23rd October, 1982 in terms was requested in respect of assessment year 1980-81 and the second report dated 2-4-1984 in respect of the period ending 31-3-1981 was obtained on 3-4-1984 and submitted before the assessment, in which the cost of construction was worked out at Rs. 11,54,800 as against the book version of Rs. 11,44,554.
In the case of Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh('), Mahajan, C.J. at pages 388-89 of the report said "The Preamble and the body, of the sections sufficiently formulate the legislative policy and the ambit and character of the Act is such that the details of that policy can only be worked out by delegating them to a subordinate authority within the framework of that policy".
(Ranjit Thakur is quoted (1) 'Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights? 

(1993 P.L.. 59). in f.n.p.601). 

 Brind (HL)(1991) - administrative law - proportionality - debatable in India in cases not involving fundamental freedoms: Tata Cellular (SC) (1994) and McDowell (SC) (1996):
In R. P. Kapoor v. Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1966 All. 66, the Allahabad High Court considered the scope of preliminary enquiry under Section 476 of the old Code and held that an enquiry should be made in the case of an offence under Section 195(l)(b) or (c), Indian Penal Code and thereafter a complaint should be forwarded to the competent Magistrate.
Navnit	Lal  C.	 Javeri	 V.  K.	 K.  Sen,  Appellate  Asstt.
Commissioner, Bombay, 56 I.T.R. 198, applied.



JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeals Nos. 2459 and 2460 of 1968 and 1161 and 1162 of 1971. 

Appeals by certificate/special leave from the judgment and order dated April 1, 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 163 of 1964.
Soli. J. Sorabjee Addl. Sol. Genl., Thakur Naubat Singh Adv. Genl. Haryana, S. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondents, in Crl. A. Nos. 365, 430, & 431/77, 508, 499/78 and 38, 141 and 142/78.
[1016 B, C]
     In	 the instant case, the provisions of  Section  22(1)
did  not, therefore, bar the prosecution of the	 proceedings by  the respondents and the order dated September  30,	1989 passed	by the XII Additional Small Cause  Judge,  Bangalore allowing  the eviction petition cannot be held to have	been passed	in contravention of the provisions of Section  22(1)
of the Act.
In this petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act'), petitioner-Ficom Organics Ltd. (hereinafter 'the petitioner') has prayed that the respondent-company-Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. ('the respondent/the respondent-company') be wound up on the ground that the respondent has not paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 16,27,433.15.
On an anxious consideration of the materials available in the case in particular ex. p7 (fir), Ex. P28 (statement by amrik singh), evidence of pw-5 (widow of deceased balbir singh) and the medical evidence, we are satisfied that the court below was justified in holding that Baldev Singh (accused No.1) and Roor Singh (accused No. 3) caused injuries to Balbir Singh (deceased No. 1), which resulted in his death.
A Division Bench (S. T. Desai and K. T. Desai JJ.) of the Bombay High Court held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd., 35 I.T.R.662,(1) that though the above observations of Buckley J. were in the context of reconstruction of a company, they were equally illuminating for determining the scope of reconstruction of a business already in existence.
Out of the said eight witnesses PW2 HC Vandana, on 8.12.2012 was posted as Sessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 11 of 32 duty officer at police station Malviya Nagar and in that capacity recorded DD entry no. 16 and FIR no. 510/2012; and she during her examination proved the the said DD entry and FIR, copies of which were admitted in evidence as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively.
Before I advert to the said line of the defence taken by the accused it is imperative for me to go through the provisions of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act which read as under:
 --Until the contrary is proved, the following pre­ sumptions shall be made­
 (a) of consideration.--that every negotiable instru­ Case No. : 5054/14 Surender Kumar Vs. Surat Singh Page 7/12 ment
: (per the Honble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao) This writ petition is filed by the three petitioners viz., K.Venkaiah, Rama Rao and Narasimha Rao, sons of Ramadasu against 8 respondents of whom respondents 5 to 8 relevant are K.B.Ramana, K.Nageswara Rao, B.C.V.Ramana and K.Siva.
Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 

************************************************************ Sessions Case Number : 05 of 2015. 

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0020062015 FIR No. 852/2014, Police Station Khayala Under sections 376, 328, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Tarun Kumar -:: Page 12 of 12 ::-
In the case of Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh Chithere and others Versus Swarupsingh Education Society 24 Ori.Sms.2029.11 and another, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 372 this Court held that the extent of jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not limited to the only factum of change but it extends its legality and validity as well."
These two witnesses, i.e. Usha Devi and Jarnail Singh, both having been found to be followers of Dera Baba Kali Dass, that too was found to be a suspicious circumstance and it was opined by the learned trial Court that Jarnail Singh had testified in favour of the will benefitting Usha Devi, they both being 'disciples' of the same Dera/sect. 

28.
It is further alleged that in order to discharge his liability the accused has issued three cheque's to the CC No. 2264/12 Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Sunil Dutt Shukla 12/12 complainant bearing No. 415211, 415214 & 415215 dated 01.11.2011, 01.12.2011 and 01.01.2012 respectively all amounting to Rs. 29,628/­ each, all drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana Branch.
Accused/Narayan Diwakar (A-2) has besides arguing on charge,

has also objected to the jurisdiction of this court to try the present CBI Vs. Gokul Chand Aggarwal & Ors (Swarn CGHS)           CBI No.77/08                              Page No.3 of 68  case with reference to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as A Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2009 CRI.LJ 3450, by filing an application, which has also been considered.
The defendant being the true and lawful owner, occupier and in the physical possession of the plot 154/610 and 155/310 situated in the village Pooth Khurd had executed the Sale Deed of plot 154/610 (2­2) in favour of Sh. Pawan Mittal, S/o Shiv Narayan, R/o D­21, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Delhi and Sh. Pawan Mittal had instituted the mutation proceedings.
It was also urged on his behalf that there were two political groups in Gopalganj one led by Nagina Rai, the then member of Parliament, on one hand, who was a Bhumiar, and the other led by Kali Pandey, a Brahroin by caste, and the Collector had always been siding his caste man, Nagina Rai, and probably the group of Kali Pandey had got him killed.
Actual admissions by medical colleges in Intake fixed by the St. Govt. in 93-94 94-95 95-96 93-94 94-95 95-96   
 
   
  
   
   

1. ADI-CHUNCHANAGIR1 1NST. OF MED. SC. 

2. AL-AMEEN MED. COLL. 

3. BANGALORE MED. COLL. 

4. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR INST.
Statements under Section 269P(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner were duly filed by the transferees along with a copy of the instrument of transfer disclosing the following particulars; 
(a) The said property consisted of a partly two and partly three-storeyed buildings together with one-storeyed out-houses in a total area of 6 cottahs, 5 chittacks and 25 sft.
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, S. B. Saharya, K. Ram Kumar and V. B. Saharya for the Appellants in C. As. 420 and 442- 445/73. 

V. A. Sayed Muhamed (In CA 420/73) and K. M. K. Nair for R. I in all appeals and R. 2 in C. As. 442, 443 and 445 of 1973. 

Miss Lilly Thomas RR. 3-10 and CA 445/73.
The three petitioners and respondents Nos. 7 to 14 are Chartered Accountants and carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Price Waterhouse Peat and Co., inter alia, at No. B/4, Gillander House, in the town of Calcutta, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, N.R. Mookherjee and S. Kanungo and respondent No. 5, Prantosh Bakshi, are employees under the partnership Price Waterhouse Peat and Co. 
 2.
Thereafter, P.W. 2 sent for the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shivanna Gouda, P.W. 13, and gave a complaint, Ex. P. 6, against the Accused, P.W. 13 registered a case against the Accused for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) and (c) of the Act in Crime No. 4 of 1973 of Hospet Town Police Station.
On perusal of EX.DW6/A against Reeta Verma and Manish Agrawal Rajesh Verma, his brother in relation of Kamal and brother in law of Smt. ____x_____. 

26. DW7 deposed that on 24.8.2009 he was working as Duty Officer at P.S. Bhajan Pura and he had recorded FIR No. 333/09 at P.S. Bhajan Pura and he proved the computerized copy of FIR as EX.DW7/A.
When bus bearing registration No. MP- 09-FA-2717, reached Jamli Toll Plaza on A.B. Road, other bus bearing registration No. R.J.-09-PA-1442 of Ashok Travels was standing there, where some dispute has taken place between the conductor of bus of 'Sai Kripa Travels', namely Pankaj Panchal and accused Dilip Sharma and Rajkumar Kushwaha of the bus belonging to Ashok Travels.
The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove its charge:- P.W. 1 Sintu Kumar, P.W. 2 Ranjeet Kumar, P.W. 3 Pintu Kumar, P.W. 4 Sudhir Singh, P.W. 5 Babloo Kumar, P.W. 6 Sudama Singh, P.W. 7 Bimal Deo Singh, P.W. 8 Rohit Singh, P.W. 9 Shanti Devi, P.W. 10 Jyotindra Nandan Azad, P.W. 11 Arun Kumar Singh, P.W. 12 Dr. Parshuram Prasad.
The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined as well as 7 witnesses namely PW1 HC Mukesh Kumar, PW2 HC Suresh Chand, PW3 Ct. Vipin Gyagi, PW4 HC Kailash Chand, PW5 Sh. V.R. Anand, AD, FSL, Rohini, PW6 Ct. Ravinder Giri and PW7 HC Sunil Gaur.
3. Defendant No.2 Charno executed registered sale deed vasika No.1846 dated 14.6.1993 of land measuring 23 bighas 16 biswas for Rs.1,98,334/- in favour of defendant No.9 Jagjit Singh, defendant No.10 Malkit Singh, defendant No.11 Bahadur Singh, defendant No.12 Nirmal Singh and defendant No.13 Inderjit Kaur. 

 4.
In the last, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance in case decided on 5-7-1988 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. L. Mehta, reported in 1989 Cr LR 582 (Raj), Hardev Gujar v. State of Rajasthan, and argued that in view of above decision, no person can be acquitted on account of illegality in the matter of investigation unless miscarriage of justice is shown.
Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the above mentioned two interpretations, I.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India v. E.S. I. Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332; etc. 

 

12.
We observe at the outset that both sides have, in their respective lines of arguments and perspectives, relied on the following common materials while addressing the second referred issue before us :-  
 (a) Explanation IX to Notification No. 1 /93-C.E. (as amended)  
 

 (b) Board's Circular No. 213/41/88-CX.6 dated 30-12-88;  
 (c) Supreme Court's judgment in Paliwal Electricals (supra);
In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax krs 10/13 wpL419.13.sxw (supra), a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the ITO was justified in his belief that the assessee's income has escaped assessment on the basis of the decision of the Privy Council which was held to be 'information' within the meaning of Section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act.
In the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, though altogether 12 accused have faced the trial for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 323,342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and Sections 323, 342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 12 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
It is furthermore not in dispute that she and her family members were operating six accounts with the company, the details whereof are as under :

            Sl. No.               Name                  Account No.
               1.     Mr. A Sridhar                        A555                2.     Mr. Dinesh D                         D316                3.     Mrs. Dhanam                         B0002                4.     Ms. Kalyani R.                      K0004                5.     Jayamani S.                         J0001                6.     M/s. R.S.R. Securities Limited      R0014 16.
Since the facts in the present ground 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 ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Sri.Ramakumar argued for the appellant that the judgment under appeal in so far as it sought to distinguish (2004)1 SCC 663 (Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.) and (2007) 11 SCC 40 (Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata Sood) is wholly erroneous and the issue on hand is squarely covered by the principle laid down therein.
In the case of Union of India v. Indo-French Pharmaceutical Co. -1983 (12) E.L.T. 725 (Madras), the issue for consideration before the Madras High Court was whether the three Indian Pharmacopoeia products viz. (i) Sulpha Gunidire tablets (ii) Sulpha Dimidine tablets and (iii) Calcium Gluconets tablets manufactured by M/s.
However, when the three-Judge Bench took up the matter, it was of the opinion that the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and ors. v. State of Gujarat, (supra), required reconsideration and, therefore, the cases were required to be considered still by a larger bench and on 19.11.1997, the three-Judge Bench made the following order : 1.
By the order dated 13.10.2006, passed in Cr.WJC No. 592 of 2006 (Md. Farooquzzama & Others vs. The State of Bihar), and the analogous Cr.WJC No.608 of 2006 (Sheoyogi Singh vs. The State of Bihar), the learned single Judge finalised the questionnaire for the use of the investigating agency to elicit informations from suspected persons during the course of investigation.
After the complaint was filed, the Authorized Representative (herein after referred as AR) of the complainant Sh. Shyam Sunder led his pre summoning evidence by way of an affidavit and after hearing the counsel for the complainant and considering the entire material and documents on record, summons were issued against the accused by the court vide order dated 20.03.2012 for the offence U/s 138 NI Act.
The said claim is liable to be dismissed in view of the settled position of law as declared by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman College case (1995 (4) SCC 104), Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case (1996 (3) SCC 15), and Jaya Gokul's case (2000 (5) SCC 231) inasmuch as the very same issue of power to stipulate condition for affiliation, disaffiliation were the subject matter of those decisions.
In the month of June 1953, Rs. 15,000 was paid by the plaintiff to the Bhaduris and thereafter in April 1954, Rs. 20,000 was paid by 3 drafts in favour of the Modis and in the month of July 1955 two drafts were sent to M. B. Chatterjee of Bhaduri Sen and Co. Ltd. whereof one draft was for Rs. 15,000 drawn in favour of the Modis.
The common Award of Respondent No. 2, the III Labour Court, Hyderabad (Sri Syed Abdullah) dated 18-8-1993 passed in M.P. Nos. 179, 173, 176, 175, 172 and 174 of 1992 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner is the subject and object of assail in all the writ petitions.
See Section 92 of the Assam Act; Section 62 of the Bihar Act; Section 67 of Delhi Act; Section 161 of Gujarat Act; Section 111 of Madras Act; Section 157 of Maharashtra Act; Section 121 of Mysore Act; Section 123 of Orissa Act; Section 77 of Punjab Act; Section 81 of Rajasthan Act; Section 89 of Travancore-Cochin Act; and Section 56 of U. P. Act.
Under the aforesaid deed, which has come into existence on 30.06.1985, three partners, viz. Sri.Sampathlal Jain, W/o.Ratanlal Jain (late), Smt.Neena Jain, W/o.Jayanthilal Jain and Smt.Lalitha Jain (revision petitioner) alone had retired from the partnership, viz., M/s.Jayanthilal & Company with effect from 1.7.1985.
As per PW 19, member of the aforesaid RC No. AC3/2010/A0003/CBI/ACU­III/ND CC No. 24/12 45/85 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. inspection team, they had done the inspection of the aforesaid property on 16/09/2010, 17/09/2010 and 27/09/2010 and had taken measurements thereof.
54.As regards alternate remedy, it is also a settled proposition of law that it is only a rule of policy convenience and discretion and not one of bar of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide the judgment of the Constitution Bench in U.P.STATE v. MOHMMAD NOOH (A.I.R. 1958 S.C., 86)  

 55.Whether as on date the Conciliation proceeding is pending:
Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 has held as under:-
 "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act).
Sher Singh, Sub Inspector, was examined as DW4, who stated that on 05.05.89, he and the accused were going to attend the meeting of Joint Registrar, at Abohar, and when they reached near IFFCO Centre, Abohar, at about 9.30 AM, Jagtar Singh, Secretary, met the accused, and asked him to sign some papers, which Jagtar Singh, had shown to him.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC), in which, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-
"In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%.
In fact, by an indenture of lease dated 25th January, 1946 between the Governor of Bihar as Lessor and the Congregation of the Apostolic Caramel South Kanara, Mangalore, British India, through Mother M. Theodosia, Principal, Patna Women's College, as Lessee, a perpetual lease was given of a piece of land for the use of education purposes, namely, for the establishment of a Women's College and a Girl School at Patna.
It has been reported by the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch C. I. D. Trivandrum, in his letter read above that Sri Motty Philipose, Final Year M. B. B. S. (Junior) Medical College, Trivandrum has been arrested in Crime No. 298/CR/ 81 under Sections 120 (by 466, 468, 471 and 34 I. P. C. on 29-12-l982 at 3.00 a.m.
Thus, with effect from 1,9.1988, the Ordinary pay scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was brought at par with the super-time scale of the Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service and in between 13.8.1987 to 1.9.1988, the ordinary scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service remained lower than the selection scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service.
On the 23rd May, 1955, a fourth notice was issued by Shri D. G. Banerji, Rummaging Inspector (Intelligence) to the firm under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act and by it the firm and each and all of its partners individually were asked to produce forthwith all the documents relative to the importation, purchase or sale of the goods lying in the godown at 16 Mangoe Lane.
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)".


35.                 In  Rattan  Lal    Aggarwal     Vs.    State   of  Assam,   1993   Crl  LJ.  2757   (Guh.)
(c) Naik to Head Constable. 

Section Leader's Course. 

(d) Head Constable to Sub-1 nsp. 

Platoon Comdrs. Course. 

(e) Sub-lnsp. 

to Insp. 

Kimopr ; Leader's Course  
 
(f) Inspector to AC CC Tac Course vide Org. Dte. L/No. F. 17/7/68 dt. 1.5.69.
CITATION:
 1973 AIR   22		  1973 SCR  (2) 389  1973 SCC  (3) 207 ACT:
Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 271(1)(c)-Scope of-Satisfaction regarding  matters in cls. (a) to (c) precedes the issue  of notice-Notice need not be issued in the course of assessment proceedings-No	notice contemplated before arriving  at	 the satisfaction-Provision for reference to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner  does not mean proceedings cannot be  initiated by Income Tax Officer.



HEADNOTE:
The fourth witness on behalf of the respondent was one Mr.Ganesh Kalmady, (another brother of the Respondent) and power of attorney holder of Premnath Kalmadi who was stated to have attended/involved in the working of M/s.Amigo Industries right from supervising the construction of the factory premises of the firm and who had stated that he has noticed pilferage of finished goods by Mr.Rajendra S.Singh.
In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] State Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. FIR No. 364/07 Dtd: 11.02.2014 Pg. 8 of 12 ).
Under such circumstances, the acceptable testimony of witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila Bai may be acted upon and it is  -:- 10 -:-
 Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 proved beyond doubt that appellant Kaptan Singh fired from a gun causing death of deceased Babulal, whereas appellant Samarjeet Singh fired from a gun, causing injury on the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar. 

12.
It has to be construed para materia to Rule 8(ii) of the R.H.J.S. Rules, as interpreted in I.L.R. 20 (1970) Raiasthan 179(F.B.), Rule 29 has to be harmoniously read with Rule 8(ii) and Rule 15(ii) and if so read the direct recruits under the R.H.J S. Rules cannot take advantage of the period of practice as a pleader in the matter of fixation of salary under Rule 29.
In  Rattan  Lal    Aggarwal     Vs.    State   of  Assam,   1993   Crl  LJ.  2757   (Guh.) it was observed that irregularity is not to be presumed but a party alleging  it may prove it.  



CC No.  225/03 DA  Vs. Subhash Garg                                                               Page 18 of 62  39
(4) SCC 765] (4) Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and others vs. Union of India and others [1997 (Supplementary) 2 SCC 363] (5) T.R. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana and others [1986 (Supp) SCC 584] (6) Mohammed Bhakar vs. Y. Krishna Reddy [1970 SLR 768]
SB Civil Writ Petition No.3560/2012 Dev Anand versus RSRTC & anr  SB Civil Writ Petition No.3577/2012 Vinod Kumar versus RSRTC & ors  SB Civil Writ Petition No.3451/2012 Rajendra Singh versus RSRTC & ors  SB Civil Writ Petition No.3585/2012 Rajesh Kumar versus RSRTC & ors
The NHAI has taken a stand that a total sum of Rs.16,76,55,000/- (Rupees Sixteen crores seventy six lakhs and fifty five thousand only) was approved by the Department and whereas the State Government has followed their own ________  W.P(MD)Nos.14914 of 2020 and 24052 of 2018 Rudhra Devi and another vs. The Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer procedure in depositing the compensation before the competent authority.
In K. Rama Krishnan v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg (1986 CRL. LJ 392) a learned Single Judge was dealing with the case launched under Section 482 of the Code CRL.MC No.935/2010 & connected cases -14- seeking to quash the proceedings on the basis of a charge- sheet which was launched against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under Sec.211 of the IPC.
The learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in (1992) 1 SCC 168 (Mithilesh Garg and others vs. Union of India and others), unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2005 passed in W.A.No.459/2005 etc. batch and the order of Justice E.Padmanabhan, dated 28.07.2000 in W.P.Nos.19067 to 19069 of 2000 etc. batch.
Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 31.01.2013 at about 3.00 a.m. at Todapur Road, Near R­Block Bus Stand Towards Todapur to Inderpuri, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL4CAH6621 driven by Sumit Solanki and owned by Kuldeep Solanki and insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.?
In support of the same, he referred to Sohan Singh v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 174/23 Taxman 219 (Delhi) and Kirpa Ram Ramji Dass v. ITO [1982] 135 ITR 68/[1980] 3 Taxman 487 (Punj. & Har.) to point out that even under section 148 addition can be made where a concern was held to be benami of the assessee.
The witness also proved receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 25.4.2011 qua arrest of accused Pramod as Ex.PW23/D; receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 18.1.2012 qua arrest of accused Bir Bahadur as Ex.PW23/E; receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 2.2.2012 qua arrest of accused Dalip Bahera as Ex.PW23/F. 

3.18 PW25
This Rule is against an order dated the 16th May, 1968, passed by Sri A.R. Bhattacharya, Magistrate, 1st Class, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parga-nas discharging the accused in case No. G. R. 359 of 1967 under Section 10 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act (Act XXXII of 1957), 1957.
In the case of Khudiram Kundu v. Surendra Mohan, reported in AIR 1934 Cal 666, his Lordship S. K. Ghose, J., at p. 667 of the report observes :-- 
 "This provision (Section 93 of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act (1919)) however does not affect the powers of the High Court as derived from Section 115, Civil P. C. and Section 107, Government of India Act. 1919."
Therefore, the findings of the learned Seesions Judge convicting accused appellants No. 2 Sanwal Chand (father-in-law of deceased), No. 4 Bhanwarlal (Jeth of deceased), Chetan Lal (Jeth of deceased), No. 6 Popat Lal (Devar of deceased) and No. 7 Smt. Bagtu (mother in law of deceased) for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC are liable to be set aside and their appeal deserves to be allowed.
(1887) 38 Ch D 1, the delay was fourteen years from 1871, the year of the settlement, to 1885, the year in which the action was brought, and in the Bonhotte case, 1895-1 Ch 743, the delay was as much, from July 15, 1880, the date of the voluntary settlement, to August 1894, when the plaintiffs issued the writ in their action.