[ { "text": "$~40\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n% Decided on: 31.07.2019\n\n+ Mac.App. 976/2018 & Cm Nos. 46122/2018, 15243/2019, 34195/2019\n\n Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Mr. Himanshu Gambhir, Mr. Nar\n Singh and Mr. Pushkar Singh Kanwal, Advocates.\n\n Versus\n\n Zaixhu Xie & Ors (M/S Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd )\n ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent\n Nos. 1& 2.\n Mr. Ram Kawar, Advocate for Mr. Amit Kumar\n Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.4.\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri\n\nNajmi Waziri, J. (Oral)\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 49, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 199, "end": 225, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 286, "end": 295, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 301, "end": 317, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 323, "end": 352, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 361, "end": 381, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 436, "end": 446, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 458, "end": 480, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 578, "end": 594, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 677, "end": 686, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 705, "end": 715, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 802, "end": 814, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 816, "end": 828, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 706 Of 2021\n (Arising Out Of Slp(C)No.24950 Of 2015)\n\n Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh \u2026 Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n State Of Gujarat & Ors. \u2026 Respondents\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No. 707 Of 2021\n (Arising Out Of Slp(C)No.30635 Of 2015)\n\n State Election Commission \u2026 Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n Virendrasinh Mafaji Vaghela & Ors. \u2026 Respondents\n\n With\n\n Writ Petition (C)No.786 Of 2020\n\n Narendra Kumar Ambalal Ravat \u2026 Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n State Of Gujarat & Ors. \u2026 Respondents\n\n J U D G M E N T\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 117, "end": 139, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 328, "end": 354, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 451, "end": 467, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 701, "end": 726, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 824, "end": 851, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1011, "end": 1039, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1130, "end": 1146, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "R/Scr.A/9089/2017 Judgment\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n\n Special Criminal Application No. 9089 of 2017\n\n\nFor Approval And Signature:\nHonourable Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala Sd/-\n\n==========================================================\n\n1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Yes\n judgment ?\n\n2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes\n\n3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No\n judgment ?\n\n4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to No\n the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made\n thereunder ?\n\n Circulate this Judgment in the Subordinate Judiciary.\n\n==========================================================\n Harishankar Gayaprasad Jaiswal.... Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Gujarat & 3.... Respondents\n==========================================================\nAppearance:\nMr H N Sevak for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1\nMs Moxa Thakkar, App for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1\n==========================================================\n\n Coram: Honourable Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n\n Date : 08/03/2018\n\n Oral Judgment\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 91, "end": 125, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 236, "end": 249, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 938, "end": 968, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1038, "end": 1054, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1149, "end": 1158, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1190, "end": 1202, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1329, "end": 1342, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At\n Jaipur\n S.B. Civil First Appeal No.86/1979\n\n Pt. Bansidhar Sharma Devagya (since deceased) represented by\n\n 1/1. Vijay Kumar Sharma)\n 1/2. Mohan Lal Sharma ) Sons of Shri Bansidhar\n 1/3. Purshottam )\n 1/4. Smt. Krishan Kanta Misra W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Misra d/o\n Shri Bansidhar Sharma\n\n All residents of Baiji Ka Mandir, Manak Chowk Chaupar,\n Jaipur.\n\n ----Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n 1. The State of Rajasthan.\n 2. The Commissioner, Devasthan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n 3. The Collector, Jaipur District, Jaipur.\n ----Respondents\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 85, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 163, "end": 187, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 716, "end": 734, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 752, "end": 794, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 812, "end": 846, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 04 / 10 /2019\n\n Coram\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n And\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Subramonium Prasad\n\n Writ Petition Nos.15304, 17384, 18264, 19596, 21299 & 21917 of 2019\n and\n WMP.Nos.17623, 21215 & 20518 of 2019\n\n\n WP.No.15304 of 2019\n\n Mrs.V.Sheela ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n 1. The District Collector,\n Thiruvallur District.\n\n 2. The Tahsildar,\n Poonamallee.\n\n 3. Block Development Officer,\n Poonamallee.\n\n 4. The Executive Engineer,\n Chennai Metrological Water Supply and Sewage Board,\n Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.\n\n 5. Mr.Devaraj ... Respondents\n\n Prayer in WP.No.15304 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to http://www.judis.nic.in direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action against the illegal extraction of ground water without proper approval from authorities concerned at vacant land owned by 5th respondent which is situated at near Om Sakthi Hotel, Selliyamman Koil Street, Gopurasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai-56 by considering representation dated 19.04.2019. Mr.UM.Ravichandran for R5 (in WP.No.15304/19) Mr.K.Soundararajan for R4 & R5 (in WP.No.17384/2019) Mr.G.Janakiraman for R2 (in WP.No.18264/19) Mr.C.Prabakaran for R9 (in WP.No.18264/19) Mr. Rameshwar,TNEB - R6 (in WP.No.21299/19) Mr.L.Chandrakumar (Advocate Commissioner) Common Order", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 81, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 275, "end": 286, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 402, "end": 420, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 728, "end": 736, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 888, "end": 951, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 982, "end": 1027, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1054, "end": 1115, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1146, "end": 1293, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1324, "end": 1331, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1905, "end": 1920, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1951, "end": 1966, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2004, "end": 2017, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2048, "end": 2060, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2092, "end": 2101, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2135, "end": 2149, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "W.P.(MD).Nos.17981, 17982 and\n 17983 of 2017, 17297, 17298\n and 17299 of 2015\n\n\n\n Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n Dated: 07.08.2019\n\n Coram:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam\n\n W.P.(MD).Nos.17981, 17982 and 17983 of 2017, 17297, 17298\n and 17299 of 2015\n and\n MP(MD)Nos.1,1,1,2,2 and 2 of 2015\n\n\n W.P.(MD).No.17981 of 2015\n\n G.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner\n -Vs-\n\n\n 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. by its Secretary,\n Department of Health and Family Welfare,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai.\n\n 2.The Secretary/Additional Director,\n Department of Finance,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai.\n\n 3.The Director of Medical Education,\n Kilpauk, Chennai.\n\n 4.The Dean,\n Thoothukudi Government Medical College,\n Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 256, "end": 290, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 470, "end": 485, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 823, "end": 840, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 975, "end": 999, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1211, "end": 1358, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1388, "end": 1458, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1488, "end": 1600, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n Present\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran\n &\n The Honourable Mrs. Justice M.R.Anitha\n Tuesday, The 7Th Day Of September 2021 / 16Th Bhadra, 1943\n Rcrev. No. 164 Of 2020\n Rca 11/2019 Of Additional District Court & Rent Control Appellate\n Authority, North Paravur, Ernakulam\nRevision Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents\n\n 1 Simon K.J.\n Aged 69 Years\n S/O Joseph, Kunnant House, Chirakkakam P.O.Varappuzha-683\n 517, Ernakulam District\n 2 Friends Arts Club,\n Regd No E.R.30/73, Chirakkakam Village, Represented By\n Its Present Secretary, K.J. Simon\n 3 Friends Arts Club,\n Regd No E R 30/73, Chirakkakam Village, Represented By\n Its Present Treasurer, K Sasidharan.\n 4 Friends Arts Club,\n Regd No E.R 30/73, Chirakkakam, Varappuzha\n P.O.Represented By Its Present President, K.B. Saraf,\n Aged 70 Years, S/O Bava, Kunnanattu Veettil,\n Chariyamthuruthu Kara, Kadamakkudy Village, Kanayannur\n Taluk\n By Adv Deepak Joy.K.\n\nRespondents/Respondents/Petitioners\n\n 1 Mangamma @ Brejith Andrews\n Aged 64 Years\n W/O Late Andrews, Kunnat House, Varappuzha, Ernakulam\n District, Now Residing At Vettikuzha House, Chelad\n P.O.Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District, Pin-686 692.\n R.C.R.No.164 of 2020\n 2\n\n\n 2 Ginu Andrews,\n Aged 31 Years\n S/O Late Andrews, Kunnat House, Varappuzha,\n Ernakulam District, Now Residing At Vettikuzha\n House, Chelad P.O.Kothamangalam, Ernakulam\n District, Pin-686 692.\n\n By Adv Sri.Alexander Joseph\n\n This Rent Control Revision Having Been Finally\nHeard On 2.8.2021,The Court On 7.9.2021 Delivered The\nFollowing:\n R.C.R.No.164 of 2020\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 120, "end": 136, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 216, "end": 226, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 515, "end": 525, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 666, "end": 734, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 807, "end": 875, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 951, "end": 1023, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1246, "end": 1259, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1309, "end": 1335, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1625, "end": 1637, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1900, "end": 1916, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "In The Court Of Ms. Bharti Garg,\n Metropolitan Magistrate\u00ad09, South\u00adWest District,\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nFir No. 105/19\nPs Domestic Airport\nUnder Section 4 (a) Dpt Mt Act\nCr. Case no. 16812/19\nCnr no. Dlsw020504172019\n\n\nIn The Matter Of:\u00ad\n\nState ...........Prosecution\n\n Vs.\nManish @ Tolly\nS/o Sh. Babu Lal\nR/o H. no.9/60, East Mehram Nagar,\nDelhi. .............Accused\n\n\n\n\n1. Name of complainant : Ct. Ram Raj no.330\u00adA\n2. Name of accused : Manish @ Tolly\n3. Offence complained of : Under Section 4(a), The\n Delhi Prevention of Touting\n and Malpractices against\n Tourist Act, 2010.\n4. Plea of accused : Not guilty\n5. Date of commission of offence : 19.08.2019\n6. Date of institution of case : 28.09.2019\n7. Date of reserving judgment : 13.12.2021\n8. Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2021\n9. Final judgment : Acquitted\n\nState Vs. Manish @ Tolly Cnr no. Dlsw020504172019 Page no.1/8\n Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 31, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 38, "end": 127, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 449, "end": 454, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 562, "end": 576, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1438, "end": 1443, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1448, "end": 1462, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti \n\nWrit Petition No.22851 of 2018\n\n13.08.2018 \n\nM/s. Bhaskara Wines I . Petitioner\n\nThe State of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Excise), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District &\n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Venugopal Reddy\n\nCounsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : Government Pleader for Proh.& Excise\nCounsel for the respondent no.5 : Sri N. Siva Reddy\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n1.1996(1) Ald 476 (Db) \n2.2003 (4) Ald 519 \n3.2008(1) Ald 138 \n4.Air 2008 Sc 2594 \n5.2007(3) Ald 128 (Db) \n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \nWrit Petition No.22851 of 2018\nOrder", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 44, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 106, "end": 120, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 143, "end": 156, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 296, "end": 314, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 429, "end": 442, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 619, "end": 637, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 5299-5304 Of 2003\n\n\n M/S. Tata Motors Limited\n .....Appellant(S)\n Versus\n\n State Of Jharkhand And Others .....Respondent(S)\n\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No. 6591 Of 2003\n\n And\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 8-12 Of 2004\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 151, "end": 173, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 332, "end": 351, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 495, "end": 513, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n (From Residential Office Via Video Application)\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6237 of 2020\n ======================================================\n\n\n M/s Cobra Industrial Security Forces (I) Ltd. A company duly registered under the provision of the companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Tiwary Mansion, Kamla Nagar, near Akash Trading Kokar P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand and one of its Local Office At Samvedan, Ravikar Lane, Gujral Path, Keshari Nagar, P.S.- Shastrinagar, Patna. Through its Director Sunil Kumar Tiwary, Aged about 49 Yrs., Male, Son of Late Capt. S.N. Tiwary, P.S.- Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand. \n\n ... ... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. \n\n2. Bihar School Examination Board Main Building, Sinha Library Road, Patna, through its Chairman. \n\n3. The Chairman Bihar School Examination Board, Main Building, Sinha Library Road, Patna. \n\n4. The Secretary Bihar School Examination Board, Main Building, Sinha Library Road, Patna. \n\n ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. \n\n Mr.Nirbhay Prashant, Adv. \n\n For the Bseb : Mr.Lalit Kishore, Sr.Adv. \n\n Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. \n\n For the State : Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Ac to Gp-5 For the Intervenor : Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Cav Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 231, "end": 272, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 749, "end": 763, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 871, "end": 942, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 975, "end": 1056, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1067, "end": 1149, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1271, "end": 1283, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1296, "end": 1312, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1340, "end": 1353, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1370, "end": 1382, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1412, "end": 1428, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1466, "end": 1475, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1567, "end": 1587, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n\n\n Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Original Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition (Civil) No.274 Of 2009\n\nAssam Public Works Petitioner(S)\n\n Versus\n\nUnion Of India & Ors. Respondent(S)\n\n With\n I.A. Nos.114781, 114788,\n 114807, 114814, 116964, 117074, 117697 and\n 117689 of 2019\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 96, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 182, "end": 200, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 265, "end": 279, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Item No.62 Court No. 14 Section Ii-C\n (Hearing Through Video Conferencing)\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.27236/2021\n\n Rammaiah Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Ors. Respondent(s)\n\n (For Admission ; I.R. ; Ia No.144962/2021-FOR Exemption From Filing\n C/C Of The Impugned Judgment ; Ia No.144964/2021-FOR Exemption From\n Filing O.T. and Ia No.152342/2021-FOR Exemption From Surrendering\n Within Time )\n\n Date : 03-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka\n [In Chambers]\n\n\n\n For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Aor\n Mr. A.S. Vairawan, Adv.\n Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv.\n Mrs. Shalini Mishra, Adv.\n Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv.\n Mr. Vikash G.R., Adv.\n\n For Respondent(s)\n\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 221, "end": 269, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 408, "end": 416, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 575, "end": 580, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1049, "end": 1061, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1178, "end": 1192, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1247, "end": 1260, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1316, "end": 1329, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1386, "end": 1400, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1456, "end": 1475, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1531, "end": 1542, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "1 Ep No.5/2020\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench Gwalior\n Single Bench:\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice G.S. Ahluwalia\n Election Petition No.5/2020\n.........Petitioner(s): Hemant Katare\n Versus\n.......Respondent(s) : O.P.S. Bhadoriya\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Sankalp Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.\nShri Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the respondent.\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing : 31/01/2022\nDate of Judgment : 03/02/2022\nWhether approved for reporting :\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 102, "end": 175, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 260, "end": 274, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 375, "end": 388, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 486, "end": 502, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 598, "end": 612, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 647, "end": 667, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Judgment reserved on: 26.11.2021\n Date of decision: 20.12.2021\n\n + Crl.M.C.2663/2021\n M/S Jsb Cargo And Freight Forwarder Pvt. Ltd. &\n Ors ..... Petitioners\n\n Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta and Mr.Gunjan\n Arora, Advocates.\n Versus\n State & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, App for State\n Mr.Ashok Mahipal,Advocate for R-2.\n\n + Crl.M.C.2730/2021\n\n M/S Jsb Cargo And Freight Forwarder Pvt. Ltd.And\n Ors. ..... Petitioners\n Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta and Mr.Gunjan\n Arora, Advocates.\n Versus\n State & Anr. ..... Respondents\n\n Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, App for State.\n Mr.Ashok Mahipal,Advocate for R-2.\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 14, "end": 46, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 311, "end": 352, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 498, "end": 510, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 518, "end": 592, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 679, "end": 684, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 819, "end": 833, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 913, "end": 926, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1020, "end": 1061, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1205, "end": 1217, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1225, "end": 1299, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1386, "end": 1391, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1527, "end": 1539, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1621, "end": 1634, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1724, "end": 1736, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\n A.F.R.\n \n \t Reserved on 07.10.2021\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t Delivered on 13.12.2021\n \n\n \n\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 59863 of 2015\n \nPetitioner :- Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association\n \nRespondent :- Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice Chairman and 2 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Prashant,Abhijeet Mukherji,Prashant,S.K. Pal\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Ram Bilas Yadav,Anoop Tivedi,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Himanshu Tyagi,Kartikeya Saran,Rahul Agarwal,Rakesh Kumar Singh,S.Shekhar,Vrindavan Mishra\n \n\n \n Connected with \n \n\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 11072 of 2017\n \nPetitioner :- Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association through Vice President\n \nRespondent :- Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice Chairman and 2 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Mukherji,S. Shekhar,Vrindavan Mishra\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav,Tarun Agrawal\n \n\n \nHon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.\n\n\nHon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J. \n\n[Per Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.]\n \n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6546 of 2017\n ======================================================\n\n\n Shri Sanjay Singh son of Late Nityanand Singh, resident of 134/B, Mohalla, P.O. and P.S.- Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna at present resident of A-13, Friends Colony East, New Delhi, 110065. \n\n ... ... Petitioner Versus\n1. Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Patna, through its Municipal Commissioner. \n\n2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n3. Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n4. Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2432 of 2017 ====================================================== Smt. Arti Banerjee @ Arati Banarjee Wife of Late Debanshu Banerjee, Resident of Plot No. 215, Type- A, Srikrishnapuri, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District and Town- Patna. \n\n ... ... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Patna, through Town Commissioner. \n\n2. Town Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n3. Assistant Engineer, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n4. Additional Town Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n5. Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n6. Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation at Mauryalok Complex, Patna. \n\n7. Maa Shambhavi Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Rajesh Kumar, Arya Kumar Road, Near Basti School, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Patna High Court Cwjc No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7404 of 2017 ====================================================== Prakash Kumar son of Sri Murli Prasad Sinha resident of Plot No. 8E, Road No. 12, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Patna - 800001. \n\n ... ... Petitioner Versus\n 1. Patna Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner, Patna\n 2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation. \n\n 3. Assistant Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation. \n\n 4. Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. \n\n 5. Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation. \n\n 6. Junior Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation. Patna Municipal Corporation has its registered office at Maurya Lok Complex, Opposite Kotwali Police Station, Patna - 800001. \n\n ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10975 of 2017 ======================================================\n 1. Gajendra Mohan Mishra Son of late Justice Gobind Misra, residence in India Plot No. 165B Srikrishnapuri, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Patna 800001. \n\n 2. Gunendra Mohan Misra, Son of late Justice Gobind Mohan Misra, Permanent Resident of Plot No. 165B Srikrishnapuri, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Patna 800001 and at Present residing at Block B-304,Bansal Plaza, Station Road, Ranchi-834001. \n\n 3. Nirendra Mohan Mishra, Son of Late Justice Gobind Mohan Misra Permanent Resident of Plot No. 165B Srikrishnapuri, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Patna 800001. \n\n ... ... Petitioner/s Versus\n 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna through the Patna Municipal Commissioner, Maurya Lok Building, Patna 800001. \n\n 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Building, Patna 800001\n 3. Prakash Kumar @ Munna ji, Son of Murali Prasad Sinha, Apurana Developers private Limited, Plot No. 8E, Road No. 12, Rajendra Nagar, Ps- Kadamkuan, Patna. \n\n ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cwjc No. 6546 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma Adv. Patna High Court Cwjc No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Adv. (In Cwjc No. 2432 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yashraj Bhardhan, Adv. \n\n ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah Cav Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 174, "end": 186, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 393, "end": 446, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 489, "end": 568, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 575, "end": 649, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 656, "end": 730, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 922, "end": 952, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1117, "end": 1170, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1204, "end": 1278, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1285, "end": 1381, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1388, "end": 1473, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1480, "end": 1554, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1561, "end": 1635, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1642, "end": 1673, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1995, "end": 2008, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2159, "end": 2186, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2229, "end": 2280, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2288, "end": 2335, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2343, "end": 2389, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2397, "end": 2444, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2452, "end": 2525, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2814, "end": 2835, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2958, "end": 2978, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 3192, "end": 3213, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 3378, "end": 3412, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 3500, "end": 3591, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 3594, "end": 3620, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 3897, "end": 3919, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4004, "end": 4017, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4078, "end": 4100, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4133, "end": 4149, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4244, "end": 4260, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court For The State Of Telangana\n At: Hyderabad\n Coram:\n * The Hon'Ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman\n\n + Criminal Petition No.152 Of 2020 & Batch\n\n% Delivered on: 05-07-2021\n\nBetween in Crl.P. No.152 of 2020:\n# Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed .. Petitioner\n Vs.\n$ The State of Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor\n High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents\n\n! For respective Petitioners : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy Mr. K. Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Arthi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective learned counsel ^ For Respondents : Learned Public Prosecutor < Gist :\n 4. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018\n 5. 2020 (1) Alt (Crl.) 215 (Aphc)\n 6. 1995 (1) Scj 277\n 7. 2011 (2) Crimes 250\n 8. 2017 Scc Online Cal 16323\n 9. 2002 Crl.L.J. 2872\n 10. 1992 Supp (1) Scc 335\n 11. 2020 Supreme (Ap) 348\n 12. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009\n 13. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 Kl,J Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch Hon'Ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman Criminal Petition Nos.152, 153, 155 & 162 Of 2020 And 3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 3768, 3879, 4046, 4070, 4077, 4098, 4099, 4100, 4102, 4110, 4119, 4140, 4141, 4151, 4157, 4178, 4182, 4187, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4247, 4249, 4251, 4258, 4262, 4277, 4361, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4612, 4615, 4622, 4632, 4640, 4681, 4727, 4775, 4825 & 5826 Of 2021, Common Order", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1566 of 2022\n ======================================================\n\n\n Vimal Anand Son of Satya Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village - Rajwara Virta, Ward No. 02, P.S. - Sonbarsa, District - Sitamarhi, Pin Code - 843330 (Bihar). \n\n ... ... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi (Bihar)\n4. The Superintendent of Excise, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi (Bihar). \n\n5. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi (Bihar). \n\n6. The Station House Officer, Excise, Sitamarhi (Bihar). \n\n ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar (Sc 11) ====================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice S. Kumar Oral Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 168, "end": 179, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 362, "end": 376, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 496, "end": 592, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 603, "end": 663, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 671, "end": 736, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 747, "end": 812, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 823, "end": 871, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 992, "end": 1002, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1039, "end": 1051, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1178, "end": 1186, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "W. A. No. 464 of 2022 -1-\n\n\n In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n Present\n The Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.S.Manikumar\n\n & The Honourable Mr.Justice Murali Purushothaman Thursday, The 7Th Day Of April 2022 / 17Th Chaithra, 1944 Wa No. 464 Of 2022 Against The Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 86, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 167, "end": 178, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 209, "end": 229, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Honble Sri Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu \n\nAs No.936 of 1999 \n\n20-09-2018 \n\nGollapinni Reddy Balaprasad and another Appellant/plaintiffs\n\nKota Venkataiah (died) per LRs. and others. Respondents/Defendants \n\nCounsel for the appellants: Sri G. Ramesh Babu\n\nCounsel for the Respondents: Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy \n and Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n\n Air 1981 Punjab and Haryana 130 \n2 (2008) 8 Scc 521 \n3 1999 (1) Ald 676 \n4 Air 1988 Madras 117 \n5 Air 1994 Rajasthan 31 \n6 Air 1963 Ap 15 \n7 Air 1979 Punjab & Haryana 194 \n8 (2010) 2 Scc 162 \n9 (2010) Scc 277 \n10. (1999) 5 Scc 590 \n11. Air 1994 Sc 152 \n12. Air 1999 Sc 1136 \n 3. Air 1965 Sc 1153 \n 4. Air 1964 Sc 993 \n 5. Air 1971 Ap 74 \n 6. Air 1979 Sc 551 \n 7. (2000) 3 Scc 350\n 8. (2014) 12 Scc 696 \n 9. (2005) 11 Scc 189 \n20. (2005) 8 Scc 67 \n21. 1994 (1) Alt 673 (Db)\n22. 2017 (4) Ald 386 (Db) \n23. Air 1954 Sc 280 \n24. Air 1982 Calcutta 428\n25. Air 1974 Sc 1999 \n26. Air 1959 Sc 443 \n27. Air 1965 Sc 354 \n28. Air 1972 Sc 2492 \n29.Air 1962 Punjab 196 \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu \nA.S.No.936 of 1999 \nJudgment", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 38, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 82, "end": 109, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 145, "end": 160, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 248, "end": 262, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 297, "end": 314, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 354, "end": 372, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1099, "end": 1118, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 4041 Of 2020\n (Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) No.26415 Of 2019)\n\n Action Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Shyam Metalics And Energy Ltd. \u2026Respondent\n\n\n With\n Civil Appeal Nos. 4042-4043 Of 2020\n (Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) Nos.2033-2034 Of 2020)\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 54, "end": 76, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 297, "end": 329, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 435, "end": 465, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Ma No.534/2017\n The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Avadesh Kumar and\n others\n Ma No.418/2017\n The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Avadesh Kumar and others\n\n Gwalior, Dated :07/01/2020\n\n Shri B.K. Agrawal, Advocate for appellant in Ma No.534/2017\n\n and for respondent no.10 in Ma No.418/2017.\n\n Shri S.N. Gajendragadkar, Advocate for appellant in Ma No.418/2017 and for respondent no.10 in Ma No.534/2017. \n\n Shri R.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 in both appeals. \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 184, "end": 212, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 217, "end": 230, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 409, "end": 436, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 441, "end": 454, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 566, "end": 578, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 702, "end": 721, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 816, "end": 826, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nA.F.R.\n \nJudgment reserved on 06.02.2019\n \nJudgment delivered on 19.4.2019\n \n\n \nCourt No. - 1\n \n\n \nCase :- Government Appeal No. - 5123 of 2002\n \n\n \nAppellant :- State Of U.P.\n \nRespondent :- Raghuvir Singh And Others\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.,Laxman Singh,Murlidhar Misra\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- S.P.S. Raghav,A.K. Singh,Ajay Sengar,Arvind Kumar Srivastavaac,Brajesh Sahai,Brijesh Saha,C.H.Singh Gautam,D.V. Singh,Gyanendra Kumar,J.S. Sengar,Kapil Rathore,Lav Srivastava,Mukhtar Alam,Rohan Gupta,Vikram Dev Singh Rathore\n \n\n \nConnected with\n \n\n \nCase :- Criminal Revision No. - 1548 of 2002\n \nRevisionist :- Rajeev Shukla\n \nOpposite Party :- Raghubir Singh And Others\n \nCounsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Trivedi,P.N. Misra,Rajiv Lochan Shukla\n \nCounsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Laxman Singh\n \n\n \n\n \nHon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.\n\n\nHon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. \n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 205, "end": 218, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 235, "end": 249, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 288, "end": 307, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 308, "end": 323, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 352, "end": 365, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 366, "end": 376, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 377, "end": 388, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 389, "end": 414, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 415, "end": 428, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 429, "end": 441, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 442, "end": 458, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 459, "end": 469, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 470, "end": 485, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 486, "end": 497, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 498, "end": 511, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 512, "end": 526, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 527, "end": 539, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 540, "end": 551, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 552, "end": 576, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 664, "end": 677, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 698, "end": 712, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 753, "end": 767, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 768, "end": 778, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 779, "end": 798, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 846, "end": 858, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 875, "end": 887, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 901, "end": 919, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n Bharat Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 317/2011)\n Bali Singh @ Ballu Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 342/2011)\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Gwalior Bench\n\n Division Bench\n\n G.S. Ahluwalia\n\n &\n\n Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava J.J.\n\n Cr.A. No. 317 of 2011\n\n Bharat Singh\n\n Vs.\n\n State of M.P.\n\n Cr.A. No. 342 of 2011\n\n Bali Singh @ Ballu\n\n Vs.\n\n State of M.P.\n_______________________________________\nShri Ashok Jain Counsel for the Appellant in both the Appeals.\nShri A.K.Nirankari Counsel for the State\n\nDate of Hearing : 12-04-2022\nDate of Judgment : 18th-04-2022\nApproved for Reporting :\n 2\n Bharat Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 317/2011)\n Bali Singh @ Ballu Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 342/2011)\n\n Judgment\n\n 18th - April -2022\n\nPer G.S. Ahluwalia J.\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 39, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 44, "end": 57, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 98, "end": 116, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 121, "end": 134, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 160, "end": 212, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 268, "end": 282, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 327, "end": 351, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 425, "end": 437, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 504, "end": 517, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 581, "end": 599, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 655, "end": 668, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 714, "end": 724, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 777, "end": 790, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1004, "end": 1016, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1021, "end": 1034, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1079, "end": 1097, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1102, "end": 1115, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1235, "end": 1249, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "The Honble Sri Justice N.Balayogi \n\nCriminal Petition No. 4020 Of 2011 \n\n23.03.2018 \n\nMr.Nagarjun Valluripalli, Director, Surya Ray Elixiris Private Limited, Office at : Plot No.40, Road No.7, Jubilee Hills,\n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad & another.... Respondents.\n\nCounsel for Petitioner : Sri Mavidi Rama Rao \n\nCounsel for Respondents: G.P.For Services. \n Sri P.Sri Ram.\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1. 2014 Scc Online Ker 12702 \n2. (2005) 8 Scc 89 \n3. 2010 (1) Alt (Crl.) 363 (Ap)\n4. Air 2012 Sc 31 \n5. Air 2010 Sc 2835 \n6. Air 2005 Sc 3512 \n7. (2007) 9 Scc 481 \n8. 2002 (2) Arbitration Law Report, 341\n\n\nHonourable Sri Justice N. Balayogi \n\nCriminal Petition No.4020 of 2011 \n\nOrder", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 33, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 100, "end": 121, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 227, "end": 250, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 375, "end": 390, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 467, "end": 476, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 791, "end": 802, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1145 Of 2014\n\n\n S.Ganesh & Anr. Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\n State Of Karnataka & Anr. Respondent(s)\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 75, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 229, "end": 237, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 386, "end": 404, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Item No.1501 Court No.4 Section Pil-W\n (For judgment)\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 318/2006\n\n National Campaign Committee For Central Legislation\n On Construction Labour (Ncc Cl) Petitioner(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors. Respondent(s)\n\n With\n Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 52/2013 In W.P.(C) No. 318/2006 (Pil-W)\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 130, "end": 174, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 308, "end": 396, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 486, "end": 500, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Judgment delivered on: March 04, 2022\n\n + W.P.(C) 4735/2020, Cm No. 17062/2020\n\n Ifci Retirees Welfare Forum\n ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. with\n Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Ifci Limited And Others\n ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with\n Mr. Amish Tandon & Mr. Ayush\n Beotra, Advs. for R-1\n Mr. Amish Tandon & Mr. Ayush\n Beotra, Advs. for R-3\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 39, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 225, "end": 252, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 419, "end": 428, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 508, "end": 521, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 612, "end": 624, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 800, "end": 811, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 891, "end": 903, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 910, "end": 982, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1062, "end": 1074, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1081, "end": 1153, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1253, "end": 1268, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\n \n \n Judgment reserved on 13.01.2020\n \n Judgment delivered on 20.02.2020\n \n\n \nCourt No. - 69\n \n\n \nCase :- Criminal Revision No. - 4447 of 2019\n \n\n \nRevisionist :- R.E. Kil Roy Rocky\n \nOpposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.\n \nCounsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Waseem\n \nCounsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 362, "end": 380, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 401, "end": 414, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 455, "end": 470, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 521, "end": 539, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Honble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honble Smt Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi \n\nContempt Appeal (SR).No.14228 of 2018 \n\n20.03.2018 \n\nMr.B.R.Meena, I.A.S, Principal Secretary to Government and others... Appellants\n\nMr.Arun Kumar Agarwal and others.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the appellants : Gp for Revenue\n\nCounsel for respondents : Eranki Phani Kumar \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Citations:\n\n1. (1978) 2 Scc 370 \n2. (2000) 4 Scc 400 \n3. (2004) 13 Scc 610 \n4. (2016) 14 Scc 251 \n5. (2001) 7 Scc 549 \n\nThe Honble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \nAnd \nThe Honble Smt Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi \n\nContempt Appeal (SR).No.14228 of 2018 \n\nJudgment", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 50, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 79, "end": 101, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 188, "end": 197, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 269, "end": 287, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 389, "end": 407, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 595, "end": 613, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 659, "end": 681, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of September, 2019\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan\n\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No.24481/2012(Mv)\n C/w.\n Miscellaneous First Appeal NOs.24479/2012,\n 24483/2012, 24484/2012, 21955/2013, 21957/2013,\n 24477/2012, 21952/2013, 22178/2013, 21951/2013,\n 21956/2013, 23931/2012, 24279/2012, 21954/2013,\n 23932/2012, 24480/2012, 24482/2012, 24476/2012,\n 24478/2012, 21953/2013, 22179/2013, 21612/2013,\n 21613/2013, 21614/2013, 23403/2012, 23404/2012,\n 22334/2013, 22335/2013, 22336/2013, 22337/2013 and\n 23151/2012 (Mv)\n\nMfa No. 24481 Of 2012\n\nBetween:\n\nThe Divisional Manager\nUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.\nRep: By Its Branch Office,\nMoktali Building Opp: Ksrtc\nHangal Road, Haveri,\nNow Rep By Its Divisional Manager,\nN K Complex, Keshwapur, Hubli\n ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri. Rajashekhar S. Arani, Advocate)\n 2\n\n\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Puttappa S/O Ramanna Mannur\n Age: 26 Years, Occ: Coolie,\n R/O Karajagi, Tq: Haveri,\n\n2. Smt. Yallavva W/O Yallappa Harakanal\n Age: 24 Years, Occ: Household\n Tq: Dist: Haveri,\n\n3. Suresh Laxman Vadoni\n Age: Major, Occ: Owner Of Ka.27/4329\n R/O Karjagi, Tq: Dist: Haveri,\n ... Respondents\n(Respondents No. 1 & 2 Are Served;\n R3 - Notice Dispensed With)\n ---\n\n\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S 173(1) Of Mv Act Against The Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 63, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 175, "end": 187, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 737, "end": 787, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 996, "end": 1016, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1077, "end": 1085, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1186, "end": 1194, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1287, "end": 1307, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 26Th Day Of November, 2021\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan\n\n Writ Petition No.11426 of 2020 (Gm-Res)\n\nBetween\n\nK. Dhananjay,\nAged About 46 Years,\nS/O. Late K. Krishnappa,\nHouse #48, 8Th Cross,\n12Th Main Road, Raghavendera Block,\nSrinagar,\nBengaluru - 560 050. ...Petitioner\n\n(By Sri K. Dhananjay, Party-In-Person, Through Vc)\n\nAnd\n\n1. Cabinet Secretary For The\n Hon,Ble President Of India,\n Appointments Committee Of The Cabinet,\n Cabinet Secretariat,\n Rashtrapati Bhavan,\n New Delhi - 110 004.\n\n2. Secretary For The\n Chief Information Commissioner,\n Central Information Commission,\n Cic Bhawan,\n Baba Ganganath Marg,\n Munirka,\n New Delhi - 110 067.\n\n3. Mr. Divya Prakash Sinha,\n Central Information Commissioner,\n Central Information Commissison,\n Cic-Bhawan, Baba Ganganath Marg,\n 2\n\n\n Munirka,\n New Delhi - 110 067.\n\n4. Special Public Prosecutor For\n Karnataka State By Station House Officer,\n Halasuru Police Station,\n Old Madras Road,\n Bengaluru - 560 008.\n\n5. Ms. A. Thomeena,\n Deputy Registrar,\n Central Administrative Tribunal,\n 1St And 2Nd Floor,\n Sir Visveswarayya Kendriya Bhawana,\n Next To C.P.W.D. Quarters,\n Domlur,\n Bengaluru - 560 039. ...Respondents\n\n(By Smt. Anupama Hegde, Cgsc., For R1, 2 & 5, Through\nPhysical Hearing;\nSri Mahesh Shetty, Hcgp., For Respondent 4, Through\nPhysical Hearing;\nR3 Is Served And Unrepresented)\n\n This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226\nAnd 227 Of The Constitution Of India Read With\nSection 482 Of Cr. P.C., Praying To Quash The\nMaliciously Instituted Pervert Criminal Proceeding\nPending In The Case File Of Crime No.53806/2019 (Now\nC.C.No.50750/2020-ANNEXURE-J) In The X.A.C.M.M. Court,\nMayohall Unit, Bengaluru, As It Is Illegal, Invalid And\nImpropriety For The Plural Legal Grounds Urged In\nParas No.(5.A.1.1. To 5.A.1/3) Of The Writ Petition In\nCompliance With The Fit Applicable Legal Provisions,\nCited In Para No.(5.B.1) Of The Writ Petition And\nQuash The Deceptively Passed Quasi-Judicial-Order\nAnnexure-F By Respondent No.3 And Further\nDeceitfully Issued Letters Vide Annexure-L And\nAnnexure-Q On Behalf Of Respondent No.3 As These Are\nUtter False, Illegal, Invalid And Impropriety For The\nLegal Ground Urged In Paras No. (5.A.2.1 To 5.A.2.3) Of\nThe Writ Petition In Compliance With The Fit And\n 3\n\n\nApplicable Legal Provisions Cited In Para Nos.(5.B.2.1\nTo 5.B.2.2.) Of The Writ Petition.\n\n This Writ Petition Having Been Heard And\nReserved For Orders On 08.10.2021 And Coming On For\nPronouncement Through Video Conferencing This Day,\nThe Court Pronounced The Following:\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 52, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 174, "end": 185, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 247, "end": 259, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 443, "end": 455, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 499, "end": 558, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 697, "end": 752, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 896, "end": 915, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1117, "end": 1192, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1282, "end": 1293, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1529, "end": 1542, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1596, "end": 1609, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nReserved\n \n\n \nWrit-C No. 62997 of 2017\n \n\n \nU.P. Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Members \n \nVs.\n \nUnion of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors.\n \n\n \nAppearance:\n \n\tFor petitioners: Mr. Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kashif \t\t\t Zaidi & Mr. Udyan Nandan, Advocates\n \n\n \n\tFor respondents: Mr. Manish Goyal, Addl Advocate General, with Mr. \t\t\t A.K. Goyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for \t\t\t respondent no.2-State\t\t\t Mr. Gyan Prakash, Assistant Solicitor General India, \t\t\t with Mr. Vinay K. Singh, Advocate, for respondent \t\t\t\t no. 1-Union of India\n \n\n \n\tFor intervenors : Mr. Alok Mishra, Advocate\t\n \n\n \nHon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, Chief Justice\n \nHon'ble Suneet Kumar, J\n \n\t(Per Dilip B Bhosale, Cj)\n \n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 87, "end": 117, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 158, "end": 172, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 309, "end": 322, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 350, "end": 371, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 378, "end": 390, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 429, "end": 441, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 485, "end": 495, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 591, "end": 603, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 659, "end": 673, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 761, "end": 772, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 797, "end": 812, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 838, "end": 850, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 862, "end": 877, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana\n At Chandigarh\n\n\n Civil Writ Petition No.7925 of 2020 (O&M)\n\n Date of decision: April 8th, 2021\n\nKulbir Singh\n .....Petitioner\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 71, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 222, "end": 234, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 369, "end": 385, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 508, "end": 528, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Original Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566 Of 2021\n\n\n Noel Harper & Ors. \u2026Petitioners\n\n Versus\n\n Union Of India & Anr. \u2026Respondents\n\n\n With\n\n Writ Petition (Civil) No. 634 Of 2021\n And\n Writ Petition (Civil) No. 751 Of 2021\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 143, "end": 165, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 316, "end": 327, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 473, "end": 487, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Cr.A. No. 397 of 2005 Nathu Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n Cr.A. No. 401 of 2005 Ghanshyam Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n Cr.A. 425 of 2005 Ramvir Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n\n Bench Gwalior\n\n Db : G.S. Ahluwalia & Rajeev Shrivastava J.J.\n\n Cr.A. No. 397 of 2005 Nathu Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n Cr.A. No. 401 of 2005 Ghanshyam Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n Cr.A. 425 of 2005 Ramvir Singh Vs. State of M.P.\n\n\nShri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate (through Video Conferencing) with\nShri Ayush Saxena, Advocate for Appellants Nathu Singh and Ramvir\nSingh (Cr.A.s No. 397/2005 and 425/2005)\nShri Atul Gupta, Counsel for appellant Ghanshyam Singh (Cr.A. No.\n401/2005)\nShri B.P.S. Chouhan, Public Prosecutor for State\nShri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing) with\nShri M.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the complainant.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 46, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 79, "end": 90, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 95, "end": 108, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 141, "end": 156, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 161, "end": 174, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 207, "end": 219, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 224, "end": 237, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 254, "end": 325, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 344, "end": 358, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 361, "end": 379, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 417, "end": 428, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 433, "end": 446, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 475, "end": 490, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 495, "end": 508, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 537, "end": 549, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 554, "end": 567, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 575, "end": 586, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 643, "end": 655, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 681, "end": 692, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 697, "end": 709, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 750, "end": 760, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 784, "end": 799, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 826, "end": 840, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 875, "end": 886, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 943, "end": 957, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Item No.17+32 Court No.2 Section Ii\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 7282/2022\n\n (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2021\n in Bno. No. 7338/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At\n Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)\n\n Rabindra Mishra Petitioner(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Chhotai Yadav @ Chhote Lal Yadav & Anr. Respondent(s)\n\n (For Admission and I.R. and Ia No.53415/2022-EXEMPTION From Filing\n O.T. and Ia No.53417/2022-PERMISSION To File Petition\n (Slp/Tp/Wp/..) and Ia No.53413/2022-PERMISSION To File Additional\n Documents/Facts/Annexures )\n\n Item No.32\n\n Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 7281/2022\n\n (For Admission and Ia No.53176/2022-EXEMPTION From Filing O.T. and\n Ia No.53174/2022-PERMISSION To File Petition (Slp/Tp/Wp/..) and Ia\n No.53175/2022-PERMISSION To File Additional\n Documents/Facts/Annexures )\n\n With\n Diary No(s). 7285/2022 (Ii)\n (For Admission and Ia No.50939/2022-EXEMPTION From Filing O.T. and\n Ia No.50938/2022-PERMISSION To File Petition (Slp/Tp/Wp/..) and Ia\n No.50940/2022-PERMISSION To File Additional Documents/ Acts/\n Annexures)\n\n\n Date : 13-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha\nSignature Not Verified\n\n\n For Petitioner(s)\nDigitally signed by\nIndu Marwah\nDate: 2022.04.13\n Mr. Jitendar Kr. Sharma, Adv.\n17:42:55 Ist\nReason: Mr. Shrikant Prasad, Adv.\n Mr. Pabitra Kr. Biswal, Adv.\n Mr. Prahlad Narayan Singh, Adv.\n Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Aor\n Mr. Ravindra Mishra, Adv.\n\f 2\n\n\nFor Respondent(s)\n\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 109, "end": 150, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 453, "end": 468, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 593, "end": 625, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1615, "end": 1631, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1677, "end": 1693, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1739, "end": 1766, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1835, "end": 1846, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1903, "end": 1922, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1981, "end": 1996, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2042, "end": 2060, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2106, "end": 2127, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2174, "end": 2192, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2237, "end": 2252, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Item No.107 Court No.9 Section Iii\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Civil Appeal No(s). 1309/2017\n\n Biswas Nair Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Shinie Biswas Nair Respondent(s)\n\n\n With\n Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 241/2016 In Slp(C) No. 31208/2015\n (For On Ia 1/2016 For Initiating Criminal Proceedings U/S 340 Of\n Crpc On Ia 2/2016)\n\n Date : 01-02-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer\n\n For Appellant(s)\n Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Aor\n\n Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv.\n Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Adv.\n Mr. Aditya Singh, Aor\n For Respondent(s)\n Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Aor\n Mr. Aditya Singh, Aor\n\n Mr. Anirban Tripathi, Adv.\n Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Aor\n Mr. J. Kurian, Adv.\n Mr. Rajshri Dubey, Adv.\n Mr. V.S. Rawat, Adv.\n Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.\n Mr. Sushil Pandey, Adv.\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 130, "end": 176, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 334, "end": 345, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 500, "end": 518, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 886, "end": 897, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 946, "end": 961, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1034, "end": 1048, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1104, "end": 1116, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1172, "end": 1185, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1241, "end": 1253, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1331, "end": 1345, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1400, "end": 1412, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1470, "end": 1486, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1544, "end": 1558, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1615, "end": 1624, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1682, "end": 1695, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1753, "end": 1763, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1821, "end": 1837, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1895, "end": 1908, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nAfr\n \nReserved Judgement.\n \nCourt No. - 81\n \n\n \nCase :- Criminal Appeal No. - 7344 of 2006\n \n\n \nAppellant :- Girish Chandra Bajpayee\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- Mayank Bhushan, A.K.Mishra, Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Mehta,Bhupendra Nath Singh,D.P.Singh,Sudeep Pathak,V.C. Mishra\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate\n \n\n \nHon'ble Shashi Kant,J.\n\n\nHon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. \n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 153, "end": 176, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 193, "end": 206, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 234, "end": 248, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 250, "end": 260, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 262, "end": 287, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 288, "end": 299, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 300, "end": 320, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 321, "end": 330, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 331, "end": 344, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 345, "end": 356, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 413, "end": 424, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 438, "end": 449, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No.7448 Of 2008\n\n\n Dharmaji Shankar Shinde\n And Others \u2026Appellants\n\n\n Versus\n\n Rajaram Shripad Joshi (Dead)\n Through LRs. And Others \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No.7449 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 78, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 244, "end": 267, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 444, "end": 465, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Criminal Original Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition (Crl.) No.141 Of 2020\n\n\n Neetu Kumar Nagaich ...Petitioner (S)\n Versus\n The State Of Rajasthan\n And Others ...Respondent(S)\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 216, "end": 235, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 356, "end": 374, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Original Jurisdiction\n\n\n Transferred Case (Civil) No. 245/2020\n\n Lalit Kumar Jain \u2026.Petitioner(S)\n\n Versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors. \u2026..Respondent(S)\n\n With\n\n W.P.(C) No. 117/2021, W.P.(C) No. 1371/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1420/2020, W.P.(C) No.\n 1353/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1252/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1276/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1287/2020, T.P.\n (C) No. 1285/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1325/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1364/2020, T.C.(C) No.\n 257/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1434/2020, W.P.(C) No. 38/2021, W.P.(C) No. 1419/2020, T.P.(C)\n No. 1202/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1220/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1203/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1193/2020,\n T.P.(C) No. 1196/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1289/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1323/2020, T.P.(C) No.\n 1333/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1292/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1299/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1331/2020, W.P.\n (C) No. 1342/2020, T.P.(C) No. 1339/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1348/2020, W.P.(C) No.\n 1344/2020, W.P.(C) No. 1343/2020, T.C.(C) No. 250/2020, T.C.(C) No. 251/2020, T.C.\n (C) No. 247/2020, T.C.(C) No. 253/2020, T.C.(C) No. 252/2020, T.C.(C) No. 248/2020,\n T.C.(C) No. 254/2020, T.C.(C) No. 246/2020, T.C.(C) No. 256/2020, T.C.(C) No.\n 249/2020, T.C.(C) No. 255/2020, W.P.(C) No. 62/2021, W.P.(C) No. 32/2021, W.P.(C) No.\n 106/2021, W.P.(C) No. 97/2021, W.P.(C) No. 142/2021, W.P.(C) No. 135/2021, W.P.(C)\n No. 131/2021, W.P.(C) No. 122/2021, W.P.(C) No. 138/2021, W.P.(C) No. 146/2021, W.P.\n (C) No. 207/2021, W.P.(C) No. 160/2021, W.P.(C) No. 168/2021, W.P.(C) No. 205/2021,\n W.P.(C) No. 209/2021, W.P.(C) No. 194/2021, W.P.(C) No. 187/2021, W.P.(C) No.\n 180/2021, W.P.(C) No. 182/2021, W.P.(C) No. 203/2021, W.P.(C) No. 220/2021, W.P.(C)\n No. 229/2021, W.P.(C) No. 217/2021, W.P.(C) No. 221/2021, W.P.(C) No. 225/2021, W.P.\nSignature Not Verified\n\n\n (C) No. 239/2021, W.P.(C) No. 240/2021, W.P.(C) No. 228/2021, W.P.(C) No. 224/2021,\nDigitally signed by\nJayant Kumar Arora\nDate: 2021.05.21\n13:36:48 Ist\nReason:\n W.P.(C) No. 234/2021, W.P.(C) No. 260/2021 and W.P.(C) No. 262/2021, W.P. (C) No.\n 283/2021.\n\f 2\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 120, "end": 142, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 268, "end": 284, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 402, "end": 416, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Civil Revision no.4211 of 2018 1\n\nIn The Punjab & Haryana High Court At Chandigarh\n\n Civil Revision no.4211 of 2018\n Date of decision : 31.07.2018\n\nParvinder Singh @ Pinda and others\n\n ... Petitioners\n\n Versus\n\nDidar Singh\n\n ... Respondent\n\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh\n\nPresent: Mr. Surjit Singh Salar, Advocate,\n for the petitioner.\n\nAmol Rattan Singh, J.\n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 88, "end": 129, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 259, "end": 282, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 417, "end": 428, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 538, "end": 555, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 575, "end": 593, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 640, "end": 657, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated : 22.01.2021\n\n Coram:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice M.Govindaraj\n\n Wp Sr Nos.3786 And 3789 Of 2021\n\n\n Five Member Committee of Employees\n of Appu Hotels Limited at Chennai\n Having place of work at\n Le Royal Meridien, Chennai,\n No.1, Gst Road, St. Thomas Mount,\n Chennai \u2013 600 016. ... Petitioner\n in Wp Sr No.3786/2021\n\n Five Member Committee of Employees\n of Appu Hotels Limited at Coimbatore\n Having place of work at\n Le Meridien, Coimbatore,\n No.762, Avinashi Road, Chinniampalayam,\n Neelambur, Coimbatore \u2013 641 062. ... Petitioner\n in Wp Sr No.3789/2021\n\n Vs.\n\n 1.Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited\n 4th Floor, Tower No.1, Nbcc Plaza,\n Pushp Vihar, Sector 5, Saket,\n New Delhi \u2013 110 017.\n\n\n 1/80\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f 2.Indian Bank\n Stressed Assets Management Branch\n 2nd Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai,\n Egmore, Chennai \u2013 600 008.\n\n 3.Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited\n Asian Building, Ground Floor,\n No.17, R Kamani Marg,\n Ballard Estate, Mumbai \u2013 400 001.\n\n 4.Idbi Bank Limited\n Npa Management Group (Nmg)\n No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet,\n Chennai \u2013 600 015.\n\n 5.State Bank of India\n Stressed Assets Management Branch\n No.32, Montieth Road,\n Egmore, Chennai \u2013 600 008.\n\n 6.Edelweiss Arc\n Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road,\n Kalina,\n Mumbai \u2013 400 098.\n\n 7.Allium Finance Pvt. Ltd.,\n Tower 3, Wing B, Kohinoor City Mall,\n Kohinoor City, Kirol Road,\n Kurla West, Mumbai \u2013 400 070.\n\n 8.Bank of India\n Tarapore Towers, Iv Floor,\n 826, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u2013 600 002.\n\n 2/80\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f 9.Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan\n Corporate Resolution Professional\n D3, Triumph Apartments,\n 114, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,\n Arumbakkam, Chennai \u2013 600 106.\n\n 10.Appu Hotels Limited\n Pgp House, No.57, Sterling Road,\n Nungambakkam, Chennai \u2013 600 034.\n\n 11.Secretary to Government\n Labour & Employment Department\n Govt. of Tamil Nadu\n Fort St. George, Chennai \u2013 600 009. ... Respondents\n\n ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n Kolkata 'A' Bench, Kolkata\n\n(Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member)\n\n I.T(Ss).A No. 85/Kol/2017\n Assessment Year: 2009-10\n\n Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata.................................Appellant\n\n M/s. Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd..................................................................................................Respondent\n 39, Shakespeare Sarani\n 6th Floor\n Kolkata - 700 001\n [Pan : Aaaco 8663 L]\n Appearances by:\n Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca, appeared on behalf of the assessee.\n Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue.\n\n Date of concluding the hearing : November 22th, 2018\n Date of pronouncing the order : January 9th , 2019\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 104, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 121, "end": 135, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 161, "end": 182, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 353, "end": 416, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 468, "end": 492, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 712, "end": 725, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 776, "end": 787, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud \n\nC.C.C.A. No.94 Of 2002 \n\n28-08-2018 \n\nSuresh Chukkapalli Appellant ... Petitioner \n\nDr.S.Ali Abbas Hussain and others Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellant :Sri Vivek Jain and\n Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy \n \nCounsel for respondent No.1:Sri Sunil B.Ganu\nCounsel for respondent No.2: Smt. Manjiri S.Ganu\nCounsel for respondent No.3: Sri V.Manohar Rao \n\nHead Note: \n \nCases Referred: -- \n\n1. Air 2003 Delhi 15 (D.B.)\n2. (1969) 2 Scc 539 \n3. Air 2002 Ap 369 \n4. 2002 (4) Alt 448 (D.B.)\n5. (1990) 4 Scc 147 \n6. (2016) 1 Scc 762 \n7. Air 1946 Pc 97 \n8. Air 1968 Sc 1028 \n9. (2002) 9 Scc 582 \n10. Air 2014 (Cal) 92 (F.B.)\n11. Ilr (2012) V Delhi 703 \n12. (2010) 8 Scc 1 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar \nAnd \n The Honble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud \n\nC.C.C.A.No.94 Of 2002 \nJ U D G M E N T \n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 35, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 63, "end": 78, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 140, "end": 158, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 196, "end": 215, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 270, "end": 280, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 313, "end": 329, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 412, "end": 424, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 459, "end": 473, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 508, "end": 521, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 923, "end": 935, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 975, "end": 990, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan\n Bench At Jaipur\n\n S.B. Civil Writs No. 22187/2018\n\nDalip Kumar Targ S/o Shri Taru Ram, Aged About 51 Years,\nResident Of H. No. A2/12, Sector-22, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur-\n302033(Raj.)\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Public\n Health Engineering Department, Government Secretariat,\n Jaipur\n2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health\n Engineering Department, 2 Civil Lines, Jal Bhawan, Jaipur\n3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel Government of\nRajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan\n ----Respondents\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 73, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 128, "end": 144, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 396, "end": 414, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 543, "end": 677, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 693, "end": 751, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 24Th Day Of May, 2019\n\n Before\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ashok G. Nijagannavar\n\n Civil Revision Petition No.263 Of 2017\n And\n Civil Revision Petition No.264 Of 2017\n\nBetween:\n 1. Mrs.Nazneen Khaleeli,\n W/O Late Mr.Md Rafi Khaleeli,\n Aged About 85 Years,\n Not Claiming That Any Senior\n Citizenship.\n\n 2. Mr.Atha Khaleeli,\n S/O Late Mr.Md Rafi Khaleeli,\n Aged About 68 Years,\n Not Claiming That Any Senior\n Citizenship.\n\n 3. Mrs.Zeeba Moosavi,\n W/O Mr.Naseer Moosavi,\n Aged About 66 Years,\n Not Claiming That Any Senior\n Citizenship.\n\n 4. Mrs.Shahla Raza,\n W/O Mr.Saeed Raza,\n Aged About 64 Years.\n\n 5. Mrs.Soraiya,\n W/O Mr.Sayed Anwar Hassan,\n Aged About 62 Years.\n 2\n\n\n 6. Mr.Zia Khaleli,\n S/O Late Mr.Md Rafi Khaleeli,\n Aged About 60 Years.\n\n 7. Mr.Anwar Hassan,\n S/O Late Mr.Syed Qamarhassan,\n Aged About 69 Years,\n Not Claiming That Any Senior\n Citizenship.\n\n 8. Mrs.Taj Sultana,\n W/O Late Mr.Jaffer Hassan,\n Aged About 54 Years.\n\n 9. Mr.Syedi Hassan,\n S/O Late Mr.Jaffer Hassan,\n Aged About 28 Years.\n\n All Are Residing At No.2,\n Laurel Lane, Richmond Town,\n Bengaluru - 560025.\n No.1 To 8 Reptd By Gpa Holder,\n Mr.Syedi Hassan i.e., Petitioner No.9,\n S/O Late Mr.Jaffer Hassan,\n Aged About 28 Years,\n At No.2, Laurel Lane,\n Richmond Town,\n Bengaluru - 560025. ...Petitioners\n (Common)\n(By Sri.Raghunath M.D, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n 1. M/S.Siraj And Renu,\n A Registered Firm Having Its Office\n At No.38, 3Rd Floor, Rain Tree Hall\n Apartments, No.16, Rhenius Street,\n Richmond Town,\n Bengaluru - 560025,\n Rep. By Authorised Representative.\n 3\n\n\n 2. Sri K.S.Ponnappa,\n S/O Sri K.K.Subbaiah,\n Aged About 57 Years,\n No.14/3, 2Nd Floor,\n Sheriff House, 85, Gen,\n K.S.Thimmaiah Road,\n Old Richmond Road,\n Bengaluru - 25. ...Respondents\n (Common)\n\n(By Sri.K.S.Ponnappa, - R2, Party-In-Person)\n\n ****\n\n This Civil Revision Petition Is Filed Under\nSection 18 Of The Karnataka Small Causes Court\nAct., Against The Order Dated 01.04.2017 Passed\nOn Ia No.3 In Ex.No.15131/2013 On The File Of The\nXiii Addl. Judge, Court Of Small Causes\nBengaluru, Allowing The Ia No.3 Filed Under\nOrder Xxi Rule 98,99 To 101 Of Cpc.,\n\n This Civil Revision Petition Is Filed Under\nSection 18 Of The Karnataka Small Causes Court\nAct., Against The Order Dated 01.04.2017 Passed\nOn Ia No.8 In Ex.No.15131/2013 On The File Of The\nXiii Addl. Judge, Court Of Small Causes,\nBengaluru Rejecting The Ia No.8 Filed Under\nOrder 21 Rule 97 Read With Section 151 Of Cpc.,\n\n These Petitions Coming On For Orders This\nDay, The Court Made The Following:\n 4\n\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In The High Court At Calcutta\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n\nBefore:\nThe Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen\n\n G.A. No.490 Of 2018\n C.S. No.27 Of 2018\n\n La Opala R.G. Ltd.\n Vs.\n Cello Plast & Ors.\n\nFor the Plaintiffs/Petitioners : Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.,\n Mr. Sayantan Basu, Adv.,\n Mr. Prithwiraj Sinha, Adv.,\n Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Adv.,\n Mr. Manoj Gupta, Adv.,\n Mr. Abhiroop Dhar, Adv.\n\nFor the Defendant/Respondent : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.,\n\n Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Sayan Roychowdhury, Adv., Mr. Gautam Kr. Roy, Adv., Mr. Sourav Jana, Adv., Mr. Gopal Das, Adv. \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 29, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 171, "end": 181, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 322, "end": 340, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 418, "end": 436, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 485, "end": 502, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 561, "end": 574, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 629, "end": 645, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 700, "end": 710, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 765, "end": 776, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 831, "end": 844, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 899, "end": 916, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 934, "end": 947, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 959, "end": 977, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 989, "end": 1003, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1015, "end": 1026, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1038, "end": 1047, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015\n and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015\n\n\n Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n Dated : 29.11.2021\n\n Coram:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice B.Pugalendhi\n\n Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015\n and\n Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015\n\n Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015\n\n Nagarajan ... Appellant/Sole accused\n\n versus\n\n State\n Rep. by the Inspector of Police,\n Kannivadi Police Station,\n Dindigul District.\n (Cr.No.239 of 2003) ... Respondent\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 171, "end": 205, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 408, "end": 420, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 703, "end": 712, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 873, "end": 878, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate/ Original Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos.140\u00ad151 Of 2012\n\n Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. \u2026 Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc. \u2026 Respondents\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos. 981\u00ad982 Of 2019\n (Arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.9028\u00ad9029 of 2016)\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos.83\u00ad94 Of 2012\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 983 Of 2019\n (Arising out of Special Leave Petition No.5530 of 2017)\n\n And\n\n Writ Petition (Criminal) No.26 Of 2019\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 135, "end": 157, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 309, "end": 340, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 430, "end": 455, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7999 of 2021\n ======================================================\n\n\n Suraj Kumar Son of Rajkumar Prasad Resident of Village - Bhawani Chowck, Bazitpur, P.S. - Barh, and District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Excise, Patna\n2. The District Magistrate Patna\n3. The Assistant Excise Commissioner, Patna\n4. The S.H.O. Athmalgola Police Station, District- Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vivek Prasad Gp 7 ====================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice S. Kumar Oral Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 171, "end": 182, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 322, "end": 336, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 391, "end": 416, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 424, "end": 460, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 468, "end": 517, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 634, "end": 652, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 679, "end": 691, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 815, "end": 823, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No(s). 1481 Of 2018\n (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.4177 of 2015)\n\n The State Of Himachal Pradesh Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Manga Singh Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 153, "end": 175, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 406, "end": 431, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 570, "end": 581, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Original Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 Of 2005\n\n Common Cause (A Regd. Society) ...Petitioner(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Union of India and Another \u2026Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 133, "end": 155, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 327, "end": 357, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 471, "end": 485, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Item No.32+54 Court No.1 Section X\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Writ Petition (Civil) No.202/2019\n\n Mohd. Mustafa Petitioner(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Union Public Service Commission & Ors. Respondent(s)\n\n With W.P.(C) No.218 of 2019\n (With appln.(s) for appropriate orders/directions)\n\n Date : 25-02-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble The Chief Justice\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna\n\n For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.\n Mrs. Natasa Dalmia, Adv.\n Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Aor\n\n Wp(C) 218/2019 Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.\n Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv.\n Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv.\n Ms. Deepanshi, Adv.\n\n For Respondent(s)\n\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 127, "end": 178, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 324, "end": 337, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 489, "end": 520, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 875, "end": 888, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 935, "end": 948, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1005, "end": 1018, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1070, "end": 1086, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1140, "end": 1158, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1216, "end": 1226, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1280, "end": 1295, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1349, "end": 1358, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\n Second Appeal No.459 of 2017 \n\n03-04-2018 \n\nRamayanam Satish Kumar .Appellant \n \n1.Thamada Bhaskara Rao and another. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the Appellant : Sri S.Subba Reddy\n\nCounsel for the Respondent No.1: A.K.Kishore Reddy \nCounsel for the Respondent No.2: T.V.Jaggi Reddy\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n 2008(1) Alt 10 (Sc)\n2 2015(5)Alt 634 \n3 2002 (3) Scc 676 \n4 1991(1) Scc 715 \n5 2004(2) Ald 736 \n6 1996 (3)Scc 289 \n7 Air 1991 Kerala 152 \n8 1987(1) Alt 718 \n9 Air 1935 Madras 193 \n10 Air 1917 Madras 4 \n11 1939(2) Mlj 822 \n12 2016(1) Scc 411 \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nSecond Appeal No.459 of 2017 \n\nJudgment", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\"C.R.\"\n In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon\n\n Tuesday, The 30Th Day Of June 2020 / 9Th Ashadha, 1942\n\n Crl.MC.No.1797 Of 2017\n\nAgainst The Order/Judgment In Cra 299/2015 Dated 29-08-2016 Of Ii\n Additional District Court,Trivandrum\n\nAgainst The Order/Judgment In Cc 1493/2013 Of Judicial Magistrate\n Of First Class -I,Nedumangad\n\nCrime No.193/2013 Of Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram\n\nPetitioner/2Nd Accused:\n\n Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj*\n Aged 25 Years, S/O.Premarajan,\n Mylamoodu House, Karikkanad, Nedumangad,\n Trivandrum.\n *The Name Of The Petitioner Typed As \"Sunil Raj\" In\n The Cause Title Of The Memorandum Of Crl.M.C.,\n Synopsis, Index And Petition For Interim Direction\n And On The Docket Is Corrected As \"Susil Raj\" As Per\n Order Dated 12.11.2019 In Crl.M.A.No.1/2019 In\n Crl.M.C.No.1797/2017.\n\n By Advs.\n Sri.V.T.Raghunath\n Smt.C.V.Rajalakshmi\n\nRespondents/State & Complainant:\n\n 1 Gopan\n S/O.Manual,\n Mylamoodu House, Karikkanad,\n Nedumangad, Trivandrum.\n\n 2 State Of Kerala\n Represented By The Public Prosecutor,\n High Court Of Kerala.\n\nOther Present:\n\n Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, Sr Pp\n\n This Criminal Misc. Case Having Been Finally Heard On\n30.01.2020, The Court On 30.06.2020 Passed The Following:\n Crl.M.C.No.1797 of 2017\n 2\n\n\n\n \"C.R.\"\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 60, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 147, "end": 158, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 609, "end": 618, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1157, "end": 1170, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1188, "end": 1203, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1252, "end": 1257, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1376, "end": 1391, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1512, "end": 1524, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "The Honourable Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honourable Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud \n\nCriminal Appeal No.607 of 2011\n\n16-02-2018 \n\nBatchu Ranga Rao and other---Appellants \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Respondent \n\nCounsel for the appellants : Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, for for Mr. K. Suresh Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor (Ap) Head Note: \n?Citations: 1. (1985) 1 Scc 505 \n 2. Air 1973 Sc 501\n 3. 1993 Crl.LJ 3684\n 4. (1994) 5 Scc 188 The Honble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honble Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2011 Dated:16-02-2018 The Court Made The Following: \nJudgment", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 47, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 80, "end": 96, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 169, "end": 185, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 216, "end": 239, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 318, "end": 335, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 365, "end": 380, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 574, "end": 594, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 622, "end": 638, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n Mumbai Bench \"C\", Mumbai\n\n Before Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble Judicial Member And\n Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble Accountant Member\n\n ITA.NOs. 4941, 4942 & 4943/Mum/2018\n (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16)\n\nM/s Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax\n405-406-407, Mint Chambers, 45/47 Central Circle - 5(1)\nMint Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Air India Building, Nariman Point\n Mumbai - 400 021\nPan: Aaccc4110G\n\n(Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sawana\n Department by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora\n\n\n Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019\n Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 82, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 99, "end": 110, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 150, "end": 163, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 310, "end": 347, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 356, "end": 386, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 739, "end": 750, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 799, "end": 819, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal NO(s). 3189 Of 2022\n (arising out of Slp (Civil) No(s). 4125 of 2019)\n\n\n Kalyani (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. ...Appellant(S)\n\n Versus\n\n The Sulthan Bathery Municipality\n & Ors. ...Respondent(S)\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 73, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 289, "end": 296, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 436, "end": 464, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.160 of 2021\n Arising Out of Ps. Case No.-58 Year-2020 Thana- Bakhari District- Begusarai\n ======================================================\n\n\n Hanif Ur Rahman, son of Azhar Rahman, Resident of C-39, East Nizamuddin, New Delhi. \n\n ... ... Petitioner Versus\n\n1. The State of Bihar (through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar) Main Secretariat, Patna - 800015. \n\n2. Meena Khatoon, wife of Mastan @ Noor Mohammad, Resident of Village-\n Mansurpur Chaksikandar, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali (Bihar)\n3. The Bihar Police, through Standing Counsel. \n\n4. Child Welfare Committee, through Chairperson, Chanakyanagar, Mahmadpur, Begusarai. \n\n5. The Superintendent, Alpawas Grih, Nirala Nagar, Behind G.D. College, Ratanpur, Begusarai. \n\n ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner : Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Advocate Mr. Sambhav Gupta, Advocate Mr. Navnit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Nadim Seraj, G.P.5 For the Resp. No. 2 : Ms. Archana Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad C.A.V. Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 257, "end": 272, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 378, "end": 392, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 474, "end": 487, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 616, "end": 628, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 661, "end": 742, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 753, "end": 837, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 956, "end": 969, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 984, "end": 997, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1012, "end": 1024, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1039, "end": 1050, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1086, "end": 1097, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1131, "end": 1144, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1181, "end": 1201, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1297, "end": 1317, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Cwp No.24195 of 2019(O&M) #1#\n\n In The High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At\n Chandigarh.\n\n\n Date of Decision:-15.11.2019\n\n Cwp No.24195 of 2019(O&M)\n\nAkhil Krishan Maggu & Anr.\n\n ......Petitioners.\n\n Versus\n\nDeputy Director, Directorate General of Gst Intelligence & Ors.\n\n ......Respondents.\n\n\nCoram:- Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Lalit Batra\n\nPresent:- Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the Petitioners.\n\n Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India\n (Senior Advocate) assisted by Sh. Sourabh Goel,Advocate &\n Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondents.\n\n ***\n\nJaswant Singh, J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 89, "end": 155, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 317, "end": 336, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 479, "end": 535, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 658, "end": 671, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 700, "end": 711, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 729, "end": 744, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 793, "end": 807, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 893, "end": 905, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 933, "end": 950, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1021, "end": 1034, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Ma No.268/2017\n Smt. Meera and others Vs. Har Prasad and others\n Ma No.295/2017\n Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Meera\n and others\n\n Gwalior, Dated :13/01/2020\n\n Shri B.D. Verma, Advocate for appellants in Ma No.268/2017\n\n and for respondents no.1 to 3 in Ma No.295/2017.\n\n Shri N.S. Tomar, Advocate for appellant in Ma No.295/2017 and for respondent no.3 in Ma No.268/2017. \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 189, "end": 194, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 210, "end": 220, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 335, "end": 377, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 387, "end": 392, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 561, "end": 571, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 701, "end": 711, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n Dated: 11.07.2019\n\n Coram:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam\n\n W.P.(Md) No.21195 of 2014\n\n\n R.Ayyapillai ... Petitioner\n vs.\n\n\n 1.The State of Tamil Nadu\n rep.by its Secretary\n Public Works Department\n Fort St.George, Chennai-9\n\n 2.The Chief Engineer\n Water Resource Organization\n Chepauk, Chennai-5\n\n 3.The Chief Engineer\n Water Resource Organization\n Madurai Division, Madurai\n\n 4.The Superintending Engineer\n Water Resource Organization\n Tamirabarani Basin Circle\n Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2\n\n 5.The Executive Engineer\n P.W.D.Water Resources Organization\n Kothaiyar Basin Division, Nagercoil ... Respondents\n\n\n Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\n\n issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to regularize the\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n\f 2\n\n service of the petitioner who is working as Gardener from 1994(Nmr) with all\n\n service benefit and grant all monetary benefits within a time stipulated by this\n\n Court.\n\n\n\n For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli\n For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham\n Additional Government Pleader\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 258, "end": 273, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 363, "end": 375, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 522, "end": 541, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 698, "end": 799, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 825, "end": 933, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 959, "end": 1125, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1151, "end": 1280, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1874, "end": 1888, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1936, "end": 1951, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana\n At Chandigarh\n\n Date of decision: April 8th, 2021\n\n(1) Civil Writ Petition No.8087 of 2020 (O&M)\n\n\nDabra Coop. Transport Society Limited and others\n .....Petitioners\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n(2) Civil Writ Petition No.7420 of 2020 (O&M)\n\nRamesh Kumar\n .....Petitioner\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n\n(3) Civil Writ Petition No.9661 of 2020 (O&M)\n\n\nThe Dada Shyam Ji Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. Rohtak\n .....Petitioner\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n\n(4) Civil Writ Petition No.9758 of 2020 (O&M)\n\n\nThe Naya Bans Coop. Transport Society Ltd. and others\n .....Petitioners\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n\n(5) Civil Writ Petition No.10234 of 2020 (O&M)\n\n\nGonder Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. and others\n\n .....Petitioners\n Versus\nState of Haryana and others\n .....Respondents\n\n\n\n 1 of 64\n ::: Downloaded on - 05-06-2021 03:03:08 :::\n Cwp No.8087 of 2020 (O&M) -2-\nalong with other connected cases\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu\n\nPresent: Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner(s).\n\n Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.\n\n Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja and Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocates\n for respondents No.5, 6, 8 to 11, 13 to 19, 21 & 22 (in Cwp-\n 8087-2020) and for respondents No.4 to 8, 10 to 13 & 15 (in\n Cwp-10234-2020).\n\n *****\n\nMahabir Singh Sindhu, J.\n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 72, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 219, "end": 256, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 401, "end": 417, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 572, "end": 584, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 713, "end": 729, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 890, "end": 946, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1064, "end": 1080, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1234, "end": 1272, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1412, "end": 1428, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1586, "end": 1627, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1768, "end": 1784, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2128, "end": 2148, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 2168, "end": 2180, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2233, "end": 2245, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2304, "end": 2323, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2332, "end": 2344, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2580, "end": 2600, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Wp 3269-19 (J).doc\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No. 3269 Of 2019\n\n Siddharth Sabharwal ]\n Age: 40 Years, Occupation- Business ]\n Having office at, 5, Atur House ]\n 87, Dr. Annie Besant Road, ]\n Worli, Mumbai- 400 018. ]...Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n1. The State of Maharashtra ]\n ]\n2. Arzoo S. Govitrikar ]\n A-3, Alpa Apartments ]\n Pochkhanwala Road, ]\n Near Traffic Hq, Worli ]\n Mumbai- 400030. ]...Respondents\n\n Appearances-\n\n Mr. Girish Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Karan Kadam i/b. Mr. Kripashankar\n Pandey for the Petitioner.\n Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, App for Respondent No. 1-State.\n Mr. Aabad Ponda i/b. Mr. Ashish Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 2.\n\n Coram : S. S. Shinde, J\n Reserved On : 30th August 2019\n Pronounced On: 18th October 2019\n\nJudgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 78, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 200, "end": 219, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 515, "end": 535, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 621, "end": 640, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 935, "end": 950, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 960, "end": 971, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 981, "end": 1006, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1038, "end": 1052, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1096, "end": 1107, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1117, "end": 1135, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1212, "end": 1224, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 10Th Day Of August 2020\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice John Michael Cunha\n\n Writ Petition No.626 Of 2020 (Gm-Res)\n\n\nBetween:\n\nMarina Annette Rodrigues\nAged About 44 Years\nW/O Rakesh Singh\nN0.24, 2Nd Cross, Thomas Road,\nKammanahalli\nBangalore-560084\n ...Petitioner\n\n(By Sri: Manohar N, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd\n\n1. Vijaya Bank\n Mayo Hall Branch\n Public Utility Buildings, M.G.Road\n Bangalore-560001\n Represented By Its\n Assistant General Manager\n M.Bapi Raju\n\n2. G.Sirish Kumar Reddy\n Aged About 36 Years\n S/O Sree Ramulu Reddy\n Flat No.401,\n Sreedhanyatha Apartments\n 2\n\n\n\n 2Nd Main, Gopal Reddy Layout\n Dodda Banaswadi\n Bangalore-560043\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri:Vignesh Shetty, Advocate For R1;\nVide Order Dated 22.01.2020\nR2-Served Through Hand Summons)\n\n ---\n\n This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Article 226 Of\nConstitution Of India Praying To Issue A Writ, Order\nOr Direction In The Nature Of Writ Of Certiorari To\nQuash Physical Possession Of The Schedule Property\nOf The Petitioner Taken On 16.12.2019 (Annexure-Q)\nUnder The Provisions Of The Sarfaesi Act By The\nRespondent Bank As Illegal, Arbitrary And In Violation\nOf Principles Of Natural Justice And Therefore\nViolation Of Article 14 Of The Constitution Of India.\nFurther Issue A Writ, Order Or Direction In The Nature\nOf Writ Of Mandamus Directing The Respondent Bank\nTo Release The Schedule Property From Unlock The\nSame To Hand Over To The Petitioner And Etc.\n\n\n\n This Writ Petition Having Been Heard And\nReserved For Orders On 04.08.2020 And Coming On For\nPronouncment, Through Video Conference, This Day,\nJohn Michael Cunha. J, Made The Following:-\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 43, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 159, "end": 177, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 240, "end": 264, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 432, "end": 441, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 466, "end": 477, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 647, "end": 667, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 957, "end": 971, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1938, "end": 1956, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court At Calcutta\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n\n\nPresent:\nThe Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya\n\n\n G.A. No. 804 Of 2019\n Rvwo 11 of 2019\n Cs 23 of 2015\n Ga 735 of 2018\n With\n G.A. 806 of 2019\n Rvwo 12 of 2019\n Cs 23 of 2015\n Ga 734 of 2018\n\n\n Dilip Choudhury\n Vs.\n Pratishruti Projects Limited and Ors.\n\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sarkar, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. A.K. Awasthi, Adv.\n Mr. Adil Rashid, Adv.\n\nFor the Respondent : Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.\n Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.\n Mrs. Subhra Das, Adv.\n\nHeard on : 7.03.2019, 10.04.2019, 19.06.2019,\n\n 25.06.2019, 9.07.2019, 16.07.2019,\n\n 18.07.2019, 29.07.2019, 31.07.2019.\n\nDelivered on : 17.09.2019.\n Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 29, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 171, "end": 192, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 695, "end": 710, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 781, "end": 809, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 865, "end": 876, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 932, "end": 944, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 996, "end": 1007, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1060, "end": 1078, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1130, "end": 1146, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1199, "end": 1209, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1503, "end": 1524, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n\nWa No. 119/2018 Smt. Anjana Vs. Bank of India\n\n\n\n High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore\n Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal &\n Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, Jj\n Wa No.119/2018\n Smt. Anjana\n vs.\n Bank of India & Ors.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri V.K. Tankha, learned Senior counsel alongwith\n Shri Varun Tankha, learned counsel for the appellant.\n Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent\n No.1/Bank of India.\n Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the\n respondent No.2/State.\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 44, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 49, "end": 62, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 73, "end": 118, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 161, "end": 173, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 212, "end": 224, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 309, "end": 315, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 384, "end": 397, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 490, "end": 501, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 542, "end": 554, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 608, "end": 619, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 694, "end": 706, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 20/6/2018\n\n Coram\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n and\n The Honourable Mr.Justice Subramonium Prasad\n\n Writ Petition No.14937 of 2018\n and\n W.M.P.Nos.17661 and 17662 of 2018\n\n D.Ramani\n w/o.Dhandapani ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n 1.The Authorised Officer\n Bank of India\n Credit Monitoring and Recovery Department\n Star House\n Coimbatore - 641 001\n\n 2.M/s.Covai Bottles\n No.6/6/3, Theppakulathu Parai\n Masthigoundanpatti Post\n Thirumalyampalayam\n Coimbatore - 641 032 ... Respondents\n\n\n Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a\n writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in issuance of\n the notice dated 18.05.2018 and quash the notice dated 18.05.2018 with regard\n to petitioner's residential property situated at the land measuring to an extent\n of 2504 sq ft comprised in T.S. No.1267 part (G.S.232) T.S.Ward No.11, Block\n No.35 and situated at Door No.37 (Old No.62 & 63) Gandhipuram 6th extension,\n Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.\n\n\n For Petitioner ... Mr.S.R.Rajagopal\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in for Mr.P.Gurusamy\n\n ------\n\f 2\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 48, "end": 82, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 285, "end": 296, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 421, "end": 439, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 680, "end": 688, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 879, "end": 1081, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1111, "end": 1124, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2142, "end": 2155, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2235, "end": 2245, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1544 Of 2020\n (Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) No.8304 Of 2019)\n\n\n Vijay Karia & Ors. \u2026Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n\n Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl & Ors. \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n Civil Appeal No. 1545 Of 2020\n (Arising Out Of Slp (Civil) No.8435 Of 2019)\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 54, "end": 76, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 313, "end": 324, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 452, "end": 479, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "W.P.No.9267 of 2017\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 04.09.2019\n\n Coram:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n and\n The Honourable Mr.Justice Subramonium Prasad\n W.P.No.9267 of 2017\n and W.M.P.Nos.10241 to 10243 of 2017\n\n S.Vijayashankar .. Petitioner\n\n Vs.\n\n 1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. by it's Chief Secretary,\n Fort St.George, Chennai-9.\n\n 2.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. by it's Home Secretary,\n Fort St.George, Chennai-9.\n\n 3.The Director General of Police,\n Mylapore, Chennai - 4.\n\n 4.The Additional Director General of Police,\n (Social Justice and Human Rights)\n Mylapore, Chennai - 4.\n\n 5.The District Collector,\n The Collector Office,\n Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.\n\n\n 1/299\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n\f W.P.No.9267 of 2017\n\n 6.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,\n Villupuram Range,\n Villupuram District, Villupuram.\n 7.The Superintendent of Police,\n Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.\n\n 8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbcid\n District Police Office Compound, Cuddalore.\n\n 9.Mr.Raja\n The Inspector of Police\n Neyveli Township Police Station\n District, Villupuram.\n\n 10.Kaligadevi\n Constable at Neyveli Township Police Station,\n Villupuram District.\n\n 11.The Inspector of Police\n Nellikuppam Police Station,\n Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District.\n\n 12.The Dean,\n Jipmer, Dhanvantri Nagar,\n Gorimedu, Pondicheery-605006. .. Respondents\n\n\n Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\n seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay\n compensation to legal heirs of deceased Subramaniam of Rupees twenty\n lakhs for custodial torture resulted in death, within the time limit fixed\n by this Court.\n\n\n For Petitioner : Ms.P.Uma\n\n\n 2/299\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n\f W.P.No.9267 of 2017\n\n For Respondents 1 to 8 & 11 : Mr.E.Manoharan\n Addl. Govt. Pleader\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan\n Bench At Jaipur\n\n 1. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 186/2018\n\n1. Mahaveer S/o Bhanwar Lal R/o Sahaspuriya, Police Station\n Hindoli, District Bundi. At Present in Central Jail, Kota.\n\n2. Prem Shanker S/o Choga Lal R/o Sahaspuriya, Police Station\n Hindoli, District Bundi. At Present in Central Jail, Kota.\n\n ----Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nState of Rajasthan through Pp.\n\n ----Respondent\n\n Connected With\n\n 2. D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 376/2018 Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Sangram Singh R/o Bus Stand Hindoli, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. \n\n ----Appellant Versus\n\n1. State of Rajasthan through Pp. \n\n2. Moti Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal R/o Sahaspuriya, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. \n\n3. Pravat S/o Moti Lal R/o Sahaspuriya, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. \n\n4. Satyanarayan S/o Moti Lal R/o Sahaspuriya, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. \n\n ----Respondents Crla No.186/2018 :\n", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 78, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 141, "end": 149, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 274, "end": 286, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 529, "end": 547, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 702, "end": 715, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 835, "end": 853, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 871, "end": 879, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 963, "end": 969, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1050, "end": 1062, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal No.323 Of 2021\n\n Asset Reconstruction Company\n (India) Limited \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Bishal Jaiswal & Anr. \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No.3228 Of 2020\n\n Civil Appeal No.3765 Of 2020\n\n Civil Appeal No.3 Of 2021\n\n Civil Appeal No. Of 2021\n (@ Slp(C) No.1168 of 2021)\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 54, "end": 76, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 221, "end": 276, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 397, "end": 411, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 5145 Of 2016\n\n Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. \u2026Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Limited \u2026Respondent\n\n And\n\n Civil Appeal No. 5158 Of 2016\n\n Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Limited \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 9820 Of 2016\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 57, "end": 79, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 236, "end": 263, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 376, "end": 412, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 585, "end": 621, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 724, "end": 751, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "$~R-12-15\n\n\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n Judgment reserved on:2nd August,2019\n Judgment pronounced on:20th September,2019\n\n+ Crl.A. 1175/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1815/2018\n Runeet Gulathi ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Smriti\n Asmita and Mr.Sarthak Garg, Advs.\n versus\n State ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, App for State\n with Insp. Madan Mohan, Ps\n Maurya Enclave\n And\n\n Crl.A. 1268/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) Nos.1997/2018, 536/2019\n Abhay Dewan alias Gappy ..... Appellant\n\n Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah and\n Mr.Siddhant Kaushik, Advs.\n versus\n State ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, App for State\n with Insp. Madan Mohan, Ps\n Maurya Enclave\n And\n Crl.A. 27/2019\n Mahima Dewan ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms.Smriti\n Asmita and Mr.Sarthak Garg, Advs.\n versus\n State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, App for State\n with Insp. Madan Mohan, Ps\n Maurya Enclave\n\n\n\nCrl.A. 1175/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of 159\n And\n\n Crl.A. 60/2019 & Crl.M.(Bail) 107/2019\n Jatin ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Ajay Kr. Pipaniya and\n Ms.Pallavi Pipaniya, Advs.\n versus\n State ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, App for State\n with Insp. Madan Mohan, Ps\n Maurya Enclave\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\nHon'Ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal\nSangita Dhingra Sehgal, J\n", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 59, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 271, "end": 285, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 365, "end": 379, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 385, "end": 430, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 438, "end": 450, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 495, "end": 500, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 590, "end": 603, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 823, "end": 846, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 934, "end": 954, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1012, "end": 1028, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1079, "end": 1084, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1198, "end": 1211, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1421, "end": 1433, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1541, "end": 1555, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1560, "end": 1618, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1626, "end": 1638, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1680, "end": 1708, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1768, "end": 1781, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2065, "end": 2070, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2157, "end": 2174, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2211, "end": 2227, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2266, "end": 2271, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2359, "end": 2372, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2515, "end": 2523, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 2544, "end": 2566, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 2567, "end": 2589, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Crl. Appeal Nos. 1709-1710 of 2019 (@ Slp [Crl.]Nos.2497-2498 of 2019)\n The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors.\n 1\n\n\n\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos.1709-1710 Of 2019\n (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.2497-2498 of 2019)\n\n\n\n State Of Madhya Pradesh \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Killu @ Kailash And Ors. \u2026Respondents\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 108, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 113, "end": 128, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 395, "end": 417, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 701, "end": 724, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 864, "end": 879, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1537 Of 2016\n\n R. Janakiammal ... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n S.K. Kumarasamy(Deceased) Through\n Legal Representatives And Others ... Respondents\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No.1538 Of 2016\n\n S.R. Somasundaram And Another ... Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n S.K. Kumarasamy(Deceased) Through\n Legal Representatives And Others ... Respondents\n\n J U D G M E N T\n\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "1\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 29Th Day Of June 2018\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Budihal R.B.\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.A. Patil\n\n Criminal Appeal No.566/2013\n C/W\n Criminal Appeal No.194/2013\n C/W\n Criminal Appeal No.181/2013\n\nIn Crl.A.No.566/2013\n\nBetween:\n\nState by Women Police Station\nDavangere. ...Appellant\n\n(By Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, Hcgp)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. B.V.Kumar\n S/o Eerojirao @ B.Veerappa\n 40 years\n\n2. Smt.Shanthamma @ Shantabai\n W/o Eerojirao, 64 years\n\n3. Eerojirao @ B.Veerappa\n S/o B.Somanna, 69 years\n\n All are r/o 3rd Main\n 2\n\n 9Th Cross, Vinobhanagara\n Davangere - 577 001. ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri C.V.Nagesh, Senior Counsel for\nSri K.Raghavendra, Advocate)\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 377 Cr.P.C.,\npraying to modify the judgment and order of conviction of\nsentence dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Ii Additional District\nand Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C. No.16/2009 and\nimpose adequate sentence against the respondents/accused for\nthe offence p/u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and etc.\n\n\nIn Crl.A. No.194/2013\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt.Shanthamma\n Aged about 65 years\n W/o Sri Eeroji Rao\n\n2. Sri Eeroji Rao @ Veerappa\n Aged about 70 years\n S/o Somanna\n\n Both are residents of the premises\n Bearing No.1631/3\n 9th Cross, Iii Main\n Vinobhanagara\n Davanagere. ...Appellants\n\n(By Sri C.V.Nagesh, Senior Counsel for\nSri K.Raghavendra, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka\nBy the Station House Officer\nWomen Police Station\n 3\n\nDavanagere ...Respondent\n\n(By Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, Hcgp)\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2)\nCr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 23.01.2013\npassed by the Ii Additional District and Sessions Judge,\nDavanagere in S.C. No.16/2009 - convicting the\nappellants/accused for the offence p/u/s 498A R/W 34 of Ipc\nand Sec.3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act and etc.\n\n\nIn Crl. A. No.181/2013\n\nBetween:\n\nSri B.V.Kumar\nAged about 40 years\nS/o Eerojirao\nMerchant by Profession\nResident of the premises\nBearing No.1631/3\n9th Cross, Vinobhanagara\nDavanagere. ...Appellant\n\n(By Sri C.V.Nagesh, Senior Counsel for\nSri K.Raghavendra, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka\nBy the Station House Officer\nWomen Police Station\nDavanagere. ...Respondent\n\n(By Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, Hcgp)\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 23.01.2013\npassed by the Ii Additional District and Sessions Judge,\n 4\n\nDavanagere in S.C. No.16/2009 - convicting the\nappellant/accused for the offence p/u/s 498A, 304(B), 302,\n506 and 201 R/W 34 of Ipc and Sec.3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act and\netc.\n\n These Criminal Appeals having been heard and reserved\nfor judgment on 12.06.2018 and coming on for pronouncement\nof judgment this day, Budihal R.B. J., delivered the\nfollowing:-\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 46, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 169, "end": 181, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 255, "end": 265, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 491, "end": 496, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 589, "end": 607, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 629, "end": 638, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 701, "end": 723, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 763, "end": 785, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 981, "end": 991, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1016, "end": 1029, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1446, "end": 1456, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1522, "end": 1543, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1776, "end": 1786, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1811, "end": 1824, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1847, "end": 1865, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2016, "end": 2034, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2415, "end": 2424, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2616, "end": 2626, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2651, "end": 2664, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2687, "end": 2705, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2823, "end": 2841, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3383, "end": 3395, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Crl.A. No.1011/2017 J\n\n In The Court Of The Xxi Addl. City Civil And\n Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge For Cbi\n Cases At Bengaluru (Cch-4).\n\n Dated This The 12th Day Of July 2018\n\n Present: Sri. Sadashiva S. Sultanpuri,\n B.Com., Ll.B., (Spl.)\n Xxi Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and\n Prl. Special Judge for Cbi Cases, Bengaluru.\n\n Crl. Appeal No.1011/2017\n\nAppellant Mr. Chikkanna,\n S/o Late Ramalingam,\n Aged about 58 years,\n No.302, Paradise Enclave,\n 8th Main, 5th Cross,\n Sbn Colony, Mathikere,\n Bengaluru.\n\n (By Sri. Praveen C., Advocate)\n\n Vs.\n\nRespondent State by Cbi/Acb, Bangalore,\n\n (Represented by its Public Prosecutor)\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 214, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 290, "end": 313, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 546, "end": 555, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 816, "end": 826, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 886, "end": 891, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court At Calcutta\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n Commercial Division\n (Via Video Conference)\n\nBefore:\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur\n\n\n Ap/243/2021\n\n\n Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited - Electronics Division.\n\n -vs-\n\n The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr.\n\n\n\nFor the petitioner : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Touseef Khan,\n Mr. Arindam Paul,\n Mr. Parul Mukherjee,\n\nFor the respondent : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya,\n\n Mr. S. S. Koley, Heard on : 14.12.2021, 16.12.2021, 22.12.2021 Judgment on : 20.01.2022 Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:\n 1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\"the Act\"). \n\n The facts:-\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 29, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 249, "end": 267, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 329, "end": 384, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 443, "end": 498, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 548, "end": 559, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 609, "end": 621, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 662, "end": 674, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 715, "end": 730, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 770, "end": 797, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 805, "end": 816, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 889, "end": 907, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma\n And\n The Hon'Ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili\n\n\n Writ Petition Nos.38658 and 42109 of 2016, 996, 1197, 3055,\n 3056, 3295, 3296, 3298, 3299, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3544, 4560,\n 4561, 4586, 4588, 6857, 6890, 6902, 6904, 7052, 7146, 7148,\n 7150, 7154, 7156, 7157, 7159, 7160, 7161, 7215, 7342, 7355,\n 7514, 7573, 7642, 7646, 7677, 7907, 7942, 8315, 8347, 8523,\n8558, 8664, 9358, 9364, 9393, 9621, 9660, 10264, 10924, 11067,\n 11089, 11642, 14560, 18118 and 18138 of 2017 and\n 19616 of 2019\nCommon Order", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 51, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 128, "end": 150, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal NO(s). 7517 Of 2012\n\n\n Subhash Chander & Ors. \u2026\u2026Appellant(s)\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n M/S Bharat Petroleum\n Corporation Ltd.(Bpcl) & Anr. .\u2026.Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 75, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 224, "end": 239, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 352, "end": 406, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In The Supreme Court Of India\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 348 Of 2022\n (@ Slp (Crl.) No.8567 Of 2019)\n\n Anil Kumar Yadav \u2026Appellant(S)\n Versus\n\n State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. \u2026Respondent(S)\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 29, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 262, "end": 278, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 420, "end": 442, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 19Th Day Of February, 2021\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh\n\n Criminal Appeal No.176/2011\n\nBetween:\n\nSri G.L. Jagadish,\nS/O Sri G.N. Lingappa,\nAged About 52 Years,\nResiding At No.29, 3Rd Main,\nBasaveshwara Housing Society Layout,\nVijayanagar, Near Bts Depot,\nBengaluru-40. ... Appellant\n\n [By Sri H. Ramachandra, Advocate For\n Sri H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy And Associates\n - (Through V.C.)]\n\nAnd:\n\nSmt. Vasantha Kokila,\nW/O Late N.R. Somashekhar,\nAged About 58 Years,\nResiding At No.322, 8Th Main,\n3Rd Stage, 4Th Block,\nBasaveshwaranagar,\nBengaluru. ... Respondent\n\n [By Sri K.R. Lakshminarayana Rao, Advocate]\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 378(4) Of\nCr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Order Dated 06.07.2010\nPassed By The P.O. Ftc-Ii, Bengaluru In Crl.A. No.470/2009\nAnd Confirming The Order Dated 27.05.2009 Passed By The\nXxii Acmm And Xxiv Ascj, Bengaluru In C.C.No.17229/2004\nConvicting The Respondent/Accused For The Offence\nPunishable Under Section 138 Of Ni Act.\n 2\n\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Having Been Heard And\nReserved For Orders On 06.02.2021 This Day, The Court\nPronounced The Following:\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 75, "end": 111, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 236, "end": 248, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 309, "end": 322, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 547, "end": 561, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 587, "end": 614, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 685, "end": 700, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 900, "end": 924, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar\n\n Monday, The 23Rd Day Of November 2020 / 2Nd Agrahayana,\n 1942\n\n El.Pet..No.2 Of 2019\n\n\nPetitioner:\n\n Anandagopan.K, Aged 72 Years,\n S/O.Late Kesava Panicker,\n Chaithanya,\n Vallamkulam P.O.,Eraviperoor,\n Pathanamthitta-689 542.\n\n By Advs.\n Sri.V.Philip Mathew\n Sri.E.Radhakrishnan\n Sri.Jeph Joseph\n\nRespondent:\n\n Anto Antony, Aged 62 Years, S/O.Antony,\n Resident Of 12/710A(11/287),\n Skyline Palm Spring Villa,Kalathipady,\n Vadavathoor P.O.,\n Kottayam-686 010.\n\n R1 By Adv. Sri.S.Sreekumar (Sr.)\n R1 By Adv. Sri.P.Martin Jose\n R1 By Adv. Sri.P.Prijith\n R1 By Adv. Sri.Thomas P.Kuruvilla\n R1 By Adv. Sri.R.Githesh\n R1 By Adv. Sri.Manjunath Menon\n R1 By Adv. Shri.Harikrishnan S.\n R1 By Adv. Sri.Sachin Jacob Ambat\n R1 By Adv. Smt.Hani P.Nair\n R1 By Adv. Sri.Ajay Ben Jose\n R2 By Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Sc,Ele.Commn.\n\n This Election Petition Having Been Finally Heard On\n18-11-2020, The Court On 23-11-2020 Delivered The\nFollowing:\n Election Petition No.2 of 2019\n ..2..\n\n P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.\n -----------------------------------------------\n Election Petition No.2 of 2019\n -----------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2020\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 116, "end": 132, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 299, "end": 312, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 519, "end": 534, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 553, "end": 568, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 587, "end": 598, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 627, "end": 638, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 861, "end": 872, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 912, "end": 925, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 959, "end": 968, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1002, "end": 1020, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1054, "end": 1063, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1097, "end": 1112, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1147, "end": 1162, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1196, "end": 1214, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1248, "end": 1259, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1293, "end": 1306, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1335, "end": 1355, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1594, "end": 1610, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present\n\n The Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.S.Manikumar\n\n &\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P.Chaly\n\n Tuesday, The 29Th Day Of September 2020 / 7Th Aswina, 1942\n\n WP(C).No.34097 Of 2015(R)\n\nPetitioner:\n M.P.Chothy, Aged 65 Years\n S/O. Kalamban Painkan, Macherikkudy House,\n Iringole Kara, Perumbavoor Village,\n Iringole P.O, Pin 683548.\n\n By Adv. M.P.Chothy (Party-In-Person)\n\nRespondents:\n 1 State Of Kerala,\n Represented By The Chief Secretary,\n Govt. Secretariat,\n Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.\n\n 2 The Registrar,\n State Sc/St Commission, Ayyankali Bhavan,\n Kanaka Nagar, Vellayambalam, Kaudiar P.O,\n Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.\n\n 3 Registrar General,\n High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam\n\n 4 Union Of India,\n Represented By Its Secretary,\n Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment,\n Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.\n\n R1 & R2 By Sri. Prakashan K.V., Special Govt. Pleader .\n R3 By Adv. Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal\n R4 By Adv. Smt.Sindhumol.T.P., Cgc\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard On 18-09-2020,\nThe Court On 29-09-2020 Delivered The Following:\n W.P(C) No.34097/2015 2\n\n\n\n \"C.R.\"\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 136, "end": 147, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 234, "end": 247, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 397, "end": 407, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 605, "end": 615, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 661, "end": 676, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 822, "end": 994, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1014, "end": 1081, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1100, "end": 1114, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1309, "end": 1323, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1381, "end": 1401, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1434, "end": 1448, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "$~J-\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n Judgment Reserved on: 23.01.2019\n% Judgment Pronounced on: 28.02.2019\n\n+ Cs(Os) 501/2016\n Sh Rajeev Tandon & Anr ..... Plaintiffs\n Through Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms.Rosemary\n Raju, Ms.Aishwarya and\n Ms.Upasana Goel, Advs.\n versus\n Smt Rashmi Tandon ..... Defendant\n Through Mr.Gaurav Mitra, Mr.Vaibhav\n Mishra and Ms.Rashmita Roy\n Choudhury, Advs.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath\n\nJayant Nath, J.\n\n\nIa No. 14323/2016\n", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 49, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 198, "end": 211, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 288, "end": 303, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 308, "end": 352, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 361, "end": 370, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 419, "end": 431, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 480, "end": 493, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 568, "end": 580, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 585, "end": 630, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 638, "end": 691, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 741, "end": 752, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 754, "end": 765, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n Reserved on: 04.10.2018\n Pronounced on: 07.01.2019\n+ W.P.(C) 516/2010 & Cm Appl. 26668/2018\n Shobha Aggarwal & Ors. ..... Petitioner\n versus\n Uoi & Anr. ..... Respondents\n+ W.P.(C) 7489/2012\n Mahender Yadav ..... Petitioner\n versus\n Uoi & Anr ..... Respondents\n+ W.P.(C) 4951/2014\n Harsh Kumar Agarwal ..... Petitioner\n versus\n Union Of India And Ors ..... Respondents\n+ W.P.(C) 917/2018\n Chaudhary Kishan Chand & Sons (Huf)..... Petitioner\n versus\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n+ Cs(Os) 3518/2012, I.A. 3927/2013 & 15957/2013\n Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust ..... Plaintiff\n versus\n Raymond Ltd & Anr ..... Defendants\n\n Through: Petitioner No.1 in person in W.P.(C)\n 516/2010 with Sh. Pranav Jain, Advocate, for\n Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 516/2010.\n Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Rhea. G. Munjal, Ms.\n Bindita Chaturvedi and Sh. Dikshant Khanna,\n Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4951/2014.\n Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya\n Mukherjee, Advocates, for Respondent No.3, in\n W.P.(C) 516/2010..\n Sh. Ankit Jain and Sh. Siddhnat Nath, Advocates,\n for New Delhi Traders Association, in W.P.(C)\n 516/2010.\n\n\n\n\nW.P.(C) 516/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 66\n Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, for Uoi, in W.P.(C)\n 516/2010.\n Sh. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for Uoi, in W.P.(C)\n 7489/2012.\n Sh. Akshay Makhija, Cgsc with Sh. Aditya Goyal\n and Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Advocate, for Uoi, in\n W.P.(C) 516/2010 and W.P.(C) 4951/2014.\n Sh. Simran Mehta and Sh. Surhid Bhandari,\n Advocates for plaintiffs in Cs(Os) 3518/2012.\n Sh. Anuj Sarma, Advocate, for defendant, in\n Cs(Os) 3518/2012.\n Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, for Defendant Nos.\n 2 and 3, in Cs(Os) 3518/2012.\n Sh. Pradeep K.B., Advocate, for petitioner, in\n W.P.(C) 917/2018.\n Sh. S.D. Windlesh, Advocate, for Uoi, in W.P.(C)\n 917/2018.\n Sh. Abhineet Gulati and Ms. Anjana Thukral,\n Advocates, for Respondent No.2.\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.K. Chawla\nMr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n%\n1. The petitioners [in W.P.(C) 516/2010] are co-owners along with other\nheirs, of late Sharbati Devi, of property, being No. 4/14A, Asaf Ali Road;\n", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 47, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 234, "end": 249, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 333, "end": 336, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 427, "end": 441, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 536, "end": 539, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 641, "end": 660, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 744, "end": 758, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 841, "end": 863, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 933, "end": 947, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1059, "end": 1090, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1171, "end": 1182, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1368, "end": 1379, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1508, "end": 1522, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1528, "end": 1543, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1581, "end": 1599, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1608, "end": 1623, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1741, "end": 1757, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1767, "end": 1815, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1939, "end": 1949, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1958, "end": 1971, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2231, "end": 2244, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2354, "end": 2365, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2476, "end": 2490, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2506, "end": 2518, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2559, "end": 2572, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2704, "end": 2716, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2725, "end": 2740, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2856, "end": 2866, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2982, "end": 2997, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3126, "end": 3138, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3255, "end": 3268, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3378, "end": 3393, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3402, "end": 3416, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3519, "end": 3535, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 3561, "end": 3572, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 3585, "end": 3601, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,\n Delhi Bench: 'E' New Delhi\n\n Before Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member\n And\n Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member\n [Through Video Conferencing]\n\n Ita No.5849/Del/2017\n Assessment Year: 2014-15\n\nDcit, Vs. Major Shiv Dayal Singh\nExemption Circle, Chikitsa Trust,\nGhaziabad Phoos Bangla, Civil Lines,\n Fatehgarh,\n Farrukhabad\n Pan :Aabtm7636F\n (Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n Appellant by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit(Dr)\n Respondent by Sh. Abhinav Malhotra, Adv.\n\n\n Date of hearing 13.07.2021\n Date of pronouncement 29.07.2021\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 80, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 104, "end": 114, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 352, "end": 356, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 399, "end": 415, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 816, "end": 833, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 883, "end": 899, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Honble Sri Justice P. Keshava Rao \n\nCriminal Revision Case No.1625 Of 2018 \n\n\n03-07-2018 \n\nD. Chandra Sekhar ...Petitioner\n\nThe State of Telangana, by Traffic Police Station, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High ct of Judicatu\n\nCounsel for Petitioner : Sri G. Sravan Kumar.\n\nCounsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor\n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n\n1.(2012) 8 Scc 450 \n\n\n\nHonble Sri Justice P. Keshava Rao \n\nCriminal Revision Case No.1625 of 2018 \n\nOrder", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 33, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 104, "end": 121, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 141, "end": 159, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 293, "end": 308, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 445, "end": 459, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "$~\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n+ Cs(Comm) 1155/2018 & I.As.13597/2018 And 14309/2018\n Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. ..... Plaintiff\n Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior\n Advocate with Mr. Anuj Berry,\n Mr. Abhey J.V., Mr. Saksham\n Dhingra, Mr. Vinay Tripathi\n Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Apoorva\n Murali and Ms. Surabhi\n Bhandari, Advocates.\n versus\n Mr. Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. ..... Defendants\n Through: Mr.Rajeev Virmani,\n Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajay\n Bhargava, Mr.Ankur Sangal,\n Ms.Sucheta Roy, Ms.Richa\n Bhargava,, Ms.Saugaat\n Khurana and Ms.Niharika,\n Advocates.\n Reserved on: 11th October, 2019\n% Date of Decision: 30th October, 2019\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 48, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 113, "end": 138, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 203, "end": 213, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 272, "end": 282, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 320, "end": 330, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 336, "end": 383, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 389, "end": 403, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 440, "end": 451, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 457, "end": 503, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 512, "end": 560, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 615, "end": 629, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 696, "end": 710, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 760, "end": 801, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 806, "end": 818, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 851, "end": 862, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 867, "end": 909, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 915, "end": 958, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 966, "end": 974, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1166, "end": 1174, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Fao-792-2018 [1]\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana\n At Chandigarh\n\n Fao No.792 of 2018 (O&M)\n Date of Decision: August 06, 2018\n\nIcici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nMehrana and others ...Respondents\n\n\nCoram:- Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu\n\n\nPresent: Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate\n for the appellant-Insurer.\n\n Mr.Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate\n for respondents No.1 to 5.\n\n\n ***\nHarinder Singh Sidhu, J.\n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 139, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 293, "end": 340, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 393, "end": 400, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 497, "end": 517, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 536, "end": 549, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 617, "end": 633, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 703, "end": 723, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No.4233 Of 2018\n (Arising Out Of Slp (C) No.25649 Of 2017)\n\n\n Canara Bank \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. ...Respondents\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 83, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 332, "end": 343, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 477, "end": 497, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nA.F.R.\n \nCourt No. - 76\n \n\n \nCase :- Application U/S 482 No. - 39535 of 2019\n \n\n \nApplicant :- Mohammad Azam Khan And 2 Others\n \nOpposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others\n \nCounsel for Applicant :- Saiful Islam Siddiqui,Tahira Kazmi\n \nCounsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 138, "end": 156, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 190, "end": 203, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 244, "end": 265, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 266, "end": 278, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 334, "end": 352, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "C/Lpa/1655/2019 Judgment Dated: 30/06/2021\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n\n R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1655 of 2019\n\n In R/Special Civil Application No. 5342 of 2017\n With\n Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019\n In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1655 of 2019\n\nFor Approval And Signature:\n\n\nHonourable Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala Sd/-\n\nand\nHonourable Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati Sd/-\n\n==========================================================\n\n1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No\n to see the judgment ?\n\n2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No\n\n3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No\n of the judgment ?\n\n4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No\n of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution\n of India or any order made thereunder ?\n\n==========================================================\n Navrangpura Gam Dharmada Trust Thru Trustees\n Versus\n Gautambhai Bhikhabhai Thakor\n==========================================================\nAppearance:\nMr. Mehul Suresh Shah, Ld. Sr. Counsel With Mr Vishal C\nMehta(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4\n for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5\nMr. Ansin Desai, Ld. Sr. Counsel With Mr. Zalak B Pipalia(6161)\nfor the Respondent(s) No. 1\n==========================================================\n\n Coram:Honourable Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n and\n Honourable Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati\n\n Date : 30/06/2021\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 34\n\n Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 09:36:25 Ist 2022\n C/Lpa/1655/2019 Judgment Dated: 30/06/2021\n\n\n\n\n Oral Judgment\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No.576 Of 2010\n\n\n Ram Lal \u2026.Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State Of Himachal Pradesh \u2026.Respondent\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 577 Of 2010\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 578 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 58, "end": 80, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 249, "end": 256, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 395, "end": 420, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n\n Non\u00adReportable\n\n In\u00a0The\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0Of\u00a0India\n\n Criminal\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal\u00a0Appeal\u00a0No.1560\u00a0Of\u00a02013\n\n Farida\u00a0Begum ..\u00a0Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State\u00a0of\u00a0Uttarakhand ..\u00a0Respondent\n\n With Criminal Appeal No. 1652 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1653 of 2013 J U D G M E N T", "entities": [ { "start": 139, "end": 161, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 329, "end": 341, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 488, "end": 508, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Cr No.4242 of 2019(O&M) 1\n\n In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At\n Chandigarh\n Cr No.4242 of 2019(O&M)\n Date of Decision-19.11.2019\n\n\nMunicipal Committee/Council, Jalalabad(W) ... Petitioner\n Versus\nVimla Devi (now deceased) through her Lr and others\n ... Respondents\n\n\nCoram:-Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh\n\nPresent: Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate and\n Ms. Nikhita Kansal, Advocate\n for the petitioners.\n Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with\n Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate and\n Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate\n for respondents No.1 and 2.\n ***\nRaj Mohan Singh, J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 102, "end": 171, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 294, "end": 335, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 373, "end": 383, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 531, "end": 546, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 565, "end": 578, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 610, "end": 624, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 686, "end": 696, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 736, "end": 747, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 779, "end": 794, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 878, "end": 893, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n S.A. No. 421/2001\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At\n Indore\n (Single Bench : Hon. Mr. Justice Vivek Rusia)\n\n\n\n S.A. No.421 of 2001\n\n\nSabbir Khan (Deceased) through. ... Appellants.\nL.Rs. - Habib Khan & others. Defendants no.2 to 4.\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\nSher Mohmmad & others. ...Respondents\n\n\n ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.\n Shri A.S. Garg, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sapnesh Jain, Advocate for appellants.\n Shri Gulab Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.\n ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 98, "end": 181, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 229, "end": 240, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 298, "end": 309, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 506, "end": 518, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 659, "end": 668, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 693, "end": 705, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 755, "end": 767, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Item No.16 Court No.7 Section Ii\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 16399/2019\n\n (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-12-2018\n in Crmwp No. 35460/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At\n Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)\n\n Rakesh Kumar Petitioner(s)\n\n Versus\n\n The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)\n\n (For Admission and I.R. and Ia No.75301/2019-CONDONATION Of Delay\n In Filing and Ia No.75313/2019-EXEMPTION From Filing O.T. and Ia\n No.75311/2019-PERMISSION To File Additional\n Documents/Facts/Annexures )\n\n Date : 23-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose\n\n\n For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.\n Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Aor\n Ms. Shradha Narayan, Adv.\n Mr. Sanjay Goel, Adv.\n\n For Respondent(s)\n\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 107, "end": 149, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 391, "end": 448, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 456, "end": 468, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 602, "end": 624, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1031, "end": 1047, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1093, "end": 1107, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1151, "end": 1163, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1215, "end": 1230, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1278, "end": 1295, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1342, "end": 1357, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1405, "end": 1416, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Non\u00adReportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal NO(s). 8109 Of 2010\n\n\n Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. \u2026.Appellant(s)\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n Yendru Sathiraju(Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. \u2026.Respondent(s)\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal NO(s). 8110 Of 2010\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nAfr\n \nReserved\n \nCourt No. - 39\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12759 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Yantraleshwar Gupta Alias Dhreej Kumar And Another\n \nRespondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12768 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Rajendra Maheshwari\n \nRespondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12817 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Sohrab Ahmad\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12821 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Durga Prasad Baranwal And Another\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \n\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12837 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Ashish Agarwal And Another\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12876 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Santosh Kumar Chaurasia And 3 Others\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \nWith\n \nCase :- Writ - C No. - 12877 of 2019\n \nPetitioner :- Ishwar Chandra Giri And Another\n \nRespondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vineet Sankalp\n \n\n \nHon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.\n\n\nHon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. \n\n ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 302-303 Of 2009\n\n\n\nCommissioner Of Central Excise,\nDelhi-Iii ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n\nM/S. Uni Products India Ltd. ...Respondent\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 54, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 147, "end": 188, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 282, "end": 305, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan\n Bench At Jaipur\n (1) S.B. Civil Writs No. 1416/2018\n\n1. Sudhir Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda,\n Aged About 62 Years\n2. Sunil Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda, Aged\n About 61 Years, Both By Caste Oswal Jain, Resident Of\n House No. 730, Dhadda House, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Chaura\n Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)\n ----Petitioners\n Versus\n1. The Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan Department,\n Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan,\n Udaipur.\n3. Shri Balraj Munot Son Of Shri Manak Raj Munot, Resident\n Of Raj Vihar Mall, 6/4, Tonk Road, Airport, Sanganer,\n Jaipur.\n4. Smt. Manju Surana Daughter Of Late Shri Manak Raj\n Munot, Resident Of D-182, Gajraj Marg, Bapu Nagar,\n Jaipur.\n ----Respondents\n\n (2) S.B. Civil Writs No. 3512/2018\n\n1. Sudhir Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda, Aged About 62 Years\n2. Sunil Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda, Aged About 61 Years, Both By Caste Oswal Jain, Resident Of House No. 730, Dhadda House, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)\n ----Petitioners Versus\n1. The Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. \n\n2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur. \n\n3. Ajay Jain Son Of Late Shri Manak Raj Munot, R/o Raj Vihar Mile, 6/4, Tonk Road, Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur (2 of 20) [Cw-1416/2018] (Raj.)\n ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Adv. with Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv. \n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 71, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 128, "end": 150, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 210, "end": 231, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 527, "end": 597, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 608, "end": 667, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 679, "end": 691, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 812, "end": 824, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1031, "end": 1053, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1106, "end": 1127, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1328, "end": 1393, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1404, "end": 1459, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1465, "end": 1474, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1644, "end": 1658, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1674, "end": 1689, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "C.R No. 6893 of 2018 -1-\n\n\n In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At\n Chandigarh\n\n\n Date of Decision: 05.02.2020.\n\n1. Cr. No.6893 of 2018\n\n\n\nSunil Dutt Bansal &Ors ...Petitioners\n\n Vs.\n\nJai Bhagwan&Ors. ...Respondents\n\n\n\n2. Cr. No.7404 of 2018\n\nSunil Dutt Bansal ...Petitioner\n\n Vs.\n\nJai Bhagwan&Ors. ...Respondents\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin\n\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate, with\n Mr. Samar Ahluwalia, Advocate, and\n Ms. JanyaSirohi, Advocate, for the petitioners\n\n Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate, with\n Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate, for the respondents\n\n\nAlka Sarin, J.\n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 86, "end": 154, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 263, "end": 280, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 368, "end": 383, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 467, "end": 484, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 571, "end": 586, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 673, "end": 683, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 700, "end": 718, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 755, "end": 770, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 799, "end": 810, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 856, "end": 866, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 903, "end": 919, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 953, "end": 963, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 29.04.2019\n\n Coram:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n And\n The Honourable Mr. Justice M.Venugopal\n\n C.M.A.No.2249 of 2015\n M.P.No.1 of 2015\n\n\n Dr.V.Sridevi .. Appellant\n\n vs.\n\n Dr.C.S.Mani .. Respondent\n\n\n\n Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the\n Family Courts Act, against the order passed by the IIIrd Additional Family\n Court at Chennai in I.A.No.3648 of 2011 in O.P.No.3499 of 2009, dated\n 20.07.2015.\n\n\n\n For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,\n Senior Counsel\n for Mr.L.Chandrakumar\n\n For Respondent : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad\n for M/s.Row & Reddy\n\n\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n\f 2\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 48, "end": 82, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 285, "end": 296, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 418, "end": 429, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 598, "end": 607, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 751, "end": 759, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1202, "end": 1216, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1366, "end": 1380, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1448, "end": 1460, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "Honble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nWrit Petition Nos.5978 of 2017 \n\n22.03.2018 \n\nSri A. Murali and another .Petitioners\n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi\n\nCounsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Gangarami Reddy\n\nCounsel for Respondents:Learned Government Pleader \n\n for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1. \n\n Sri Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Sri M. Ravindra, learned counsel for Head Note: \n? Citations: \n1. (1978) 1 Ap Lj 459\n2. Air 1956 Sc 110 \n3. 1990(2) Alt 202 (D.B.)\n4. 1976 Air (Sc) 1785\n5. 2007 (5) Alt 676\n6. Air 1995 Ap 17 \n7. 1991 Air 1453\n8. 2006 Air Scw 5192 \n9. (2004) 8 Scc 733\n10. (1999) 6 Scc 464 \n11. (2000) 7 Scc 425 \n12. 2016 (4) Alt 426\n13. 2009 (15) Scc 705 \n14. (2013) 5 Scc 336 \n15. (2006) 7 Scc 597 In The High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh + Writ Petition Nos.5978 and 9673 of 2017 Sri A. Murali and another .Petitioners Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others. \n\n Respondents Date Of Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 38, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 100, "end": 109, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 140, "end": 163, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 291, "end": 309, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 427, "end": 436, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 487, "end": 498, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 886, "end": 923, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 1029, "end": 1038, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1075, "end": 1098, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Item No.3 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) Section Xvii-A\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n Record Of Proceedings\n\n Civil Appeal Diary No(s).13886/2020\n\n (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-10-2019\n in Ea No. 11106/2017 passed by the Custom Excise Service Tax\n Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad)\n\n Commissioner Of Central Excise And St Daman Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\n Firmenich Aromatic India Private Limited Respondent(s)\n\n (With Ia No.81178/2020-CONDONATION Of Delay In Filing and Ia\n No.81179/2020-EX-PARTE Stay)\n\n Date : 12-02-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.\n\n Coram :\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah\n\n For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, Asg\n Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.\n Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Aor\n\n\n Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n", "entities": [ { "start": 150, "end": 203, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 554, "end": 597, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 726, "end": 766, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1102, "end": 1118, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1172, "end": 1181, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1236, "end": 1248, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1307, "end": 1317, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1381, "end": 1393, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1453, "end": 1470, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": ":1:\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 8Th Day Of January, 2021\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.Somashekar\n\n Criminal Petition No. 580 Of 2017\n\nBetween\nSri T. Karthik Raja\nAged about 38 years\nS/o Thyagaraj\nA.K. International\nNo.66, 2nd Right Cross\nPuttappa Colony\nNew Thippasandra\nBengaluru - 560 075. ... Petitioner\n(By Sri. Abhinav .R, Advocate)\n\nAnd\nSri V.M. Prabhakar\nAged about 48 years\nS/o Late V.K. Madhavan\nM/s. Maruthi Ginger Traders\nMain Road, Kudige\nKushalnagar Hobli\nSomwarpet Taluk\nKodagu District - 571 234. ... Respondent\n\n(By Sri V.R. Sarathy, Advocate)\n\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the\nproceedings in Pcr No.117/2016 (C.C.No.433/2016) on\nthe file of Civil Judge and Jmfc, Kushalnagar at\nAnnexure-A as well as the complaint filed by the\n :2:\n\n\n\nRespondent in Pcr No.117/2016 dated 09.06.2016 before\nthe Civil Judge and Jmfc, Kushalnagar at Bangalore vide\nAnnexure-B.\n\n This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this\nday, the court made the following:\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 51, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 162, "end": 174, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 232, "end": 247, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 424, "end": 434, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 455, "end": 469, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 659, "end": 671, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n Dated : 27.04.2019\n\n\n Coram:\n The Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani\n\n C.M.A(MD)No.864 of 2014\n\n Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on\n 01.11.2018 27.04.2019\n\n Brinks Arya India Private Ltd.,\n Having Office at 3/85-C,\n Arun Nagar Vadavalli,\n Coimbatore District,\n Tramilnadu ... Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n 1.G.Bama\n 2.G.Thulasi\n 3.Minor G.Lenin\n (rep. By his mother and\n next friend 1st respondent)\n 4.Rengappa Reddi\n 5.Rukkumani\n 6.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Through its Divisional Manager,\n Having office at North Veli Street,\n Madurai 625 001. ... Respondents\n\n\n Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the\n Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 02.11.2009 made\n in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court,\n (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Madurai.\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n\f 2\n\n\n For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman\n For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Murugesan\n For R6 : Mr.J.S.Murali\n\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n Reserved on: 12.10.2018\n Pronounced on: 22.04.2019\n\n+ Lpa No.359/2017, Cm Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383-\n 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018\n\n Bayer Corporation ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.\n Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun\n Kumar Jana, Advs.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Cgsc with\n Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for\n R-1 & 6.\n Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5.\n Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan\n and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for\n Interveners.\n\n+ Rfa(Os)(Comm) 6/2017, Cm Nos.17508/2017 & 32128-\n 29/2017\n\n Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr\n ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate\n with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and\n Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs.\n\n versus\n\n Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek\n Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs.\n\n\n\n\nFao (Os) (Comm) 169/2017 Page 1 of 90\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva\nMr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n%\n", "entities": [ { "start": 14, "end": 46, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 270, "end": 287, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 351, "end": 365, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 400, "end": 412, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 418, "end": 432, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 441, "end": 471, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 516, "end": 530, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 602, "end": 621, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 653, "end": 663, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 672, "end": 685, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 742, "end": 752, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 792, "end": 812, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 818, "end": 830, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 855, "end": 870, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 995, "end": 1027, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1128, "end": 1146, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1186, "end": 1198, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1204, "end": 1218, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1243, "end": 1262, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1307, "end": 1335, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1382, "end": 1402, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1408, "end": 1436, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1445, "end": 1460, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1588, "end": 1604, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1632, "end": 1648, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 1661, "end": 1677, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam (Cr)\n Present\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas\n\n Monday ,The 01St Day Of October 2018 / 9Th Aswina, 1940\n\n WP(C).No. 31900 of 2018\n\nPetitioner/S:\n\n C.P.Ashok Kumar\n Aged 61 Years, S/O.A.P.Achuthan Nair,\n Kannath Valappil House\n (Anand Nivas), Arangottukara Po,\n Pin 679532,\n Thrissur District, Near Thirumittacode\n\n By Advs.\n P. Radhakrishnan\n Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan\n M.D. Joseph\n Sri.Nelson Joseph\n\n\nRespondent/S:\n 1 Sub Registrar\n Thrithala,\n Office Of The Sub Registrar, Thrithala 679534,\n Palakkad District.\n\n 2 Inspector General Of Registration\n Department Of Registration, Vanchiyoor,\n Thiruvananthpauram-695035.\n\n\nOther Present:\n Smt.A.C.Vidhya, Govt.Pleader\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission On\n 01.10.2018, The Court On The Same Day Delivered The\n Following:\n W.P.(C)No.31900/2018 2\n\n (Cr)\n Alexander Thomas, J.\n -------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C)No.31900 of 2018\n ----------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 136, "end": 152, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 297, "end": 312, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 580, "end": 596, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 617, "end": 636, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 653, "end": 664, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 685, "end": 698, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 729, "end": 860, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 879, "end": 1010, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1046, "end": 1056, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1356, "end": 1372, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "-: 1 :-\n R.P. Nos. 1399/2017\n & 1401/2017\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore\n [Division Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vivek Rusia\n And Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani)]\n\n R.P. No. 1399 of 2017\nChief Executive Officer, Dewas Development Authority,\nDistrict Dewas.\n ---Petitioner.\n Versus\n\n1. Umar Ali S/o. Wazib Ali, Aged 52 years, Occ. Agriculture.\n2. Afsar Ali S/o. Wazib Ali, Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.\n3. Bismillah Bi W/o. Wazib Ali, Aged 52 years, Occ. None.\n All R/o. Sulpur Tehsil, District Dewas.\n4. State of M.P. Through Collector, Dewas/\n Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate Office, Dewas.\n5. Commissioner (Revenue) Ujjain Division,.\n Commissioner Office, Ujjain.\n ---Respondents.\n\n R.P. No. 1401 of 2017\nChief Executive Officer, Dewas Development Authority,\nDistrict Dewas.\n ---Petitioner.\n Versus\n\n1. Rehmat Ali S/o. Nazir Ali, Aged 70 years, Occ. Agriculture.\n2. Decd. Kalu S/o. Nazir Ali through L.R's -\n a) Mumtaj Bi W/o. Late Kalu, Aged Adult, Occ. Housewife\n b) Ramjan S/o. Late Kalu, Aged Adult, Occ. Agriculture.\n c) Kubran Ali S/o. Kalu, Aged Adult, Occ. Agriculture.\n d) Jaajid Ali S/o. Kalu, Aged Adult, Occ. Agriculture\n All R/o.Gram Rasulpur Tehsil, District Dewas.\n3. State of M.P. Through Collector, Dewas/\n Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate Office, Dewas.\n4. Commissioner (Revenue) Ujjain Division,.\n Commissioner Office, Ujjain.\n ---Respondents.\n\n .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.\n Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner.\n Shri Aditya Garg, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.\n Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, Advocate on behalf of Shri K.L. Hardia,\n learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 in R.P. No. 1399/2017 and\n respondents No.1 & 2 in R.P. No.1401/2017.\n .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.\n -: 2 :-\n R.P. Nos. 1399/2017\n & 1401/2017\n\n\n Order\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 198, "end": 244, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 287, "end": 298, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 328, "end": 350, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 404, "end": 472, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 615, "end": 623, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 680, "end": 689, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 746, "end": 758, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 855, "end": 868, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 963, "end": 1001, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1169, "end": 1237, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1380, "end": 1390, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1453, "end": 1457, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1499, "end": 1508, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1562, "end": 1568, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1625, "end": 1635, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1687, "end": 1697, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1798, "end": 1811, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1906, "end": 1944, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2143, "end": 2161, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2221, "end": 2232, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2295, "end": 2312, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2341, "end": 2352, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "$~\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n% Date of Decision: 14th December, 2018\n\n+ Mac.App. 163/2018\n\n Babli Dixit & Anr ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Satendra Kumar & Ors\n (Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co Ltd ) ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for\n Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R3.\n\n Judgement\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 44, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 150, "end": 161, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 260, "end": 273, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 324, "end": 338, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 443, "end": 455, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 504, "end": 515, "label": "LAWYER" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court At Calcutta\n Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n\n\n\nPresent: The Hon'ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee\n\n\n\n\n Wp 134 of 2016\n\n\n Smt. Kalpana Poddar & Ors.\n Vs\n State of West Bengal & Ors.\n\n\n\n\nFor the Petitioners : Mr. Sarvapriyo Mukherjee, Advocate\n Ms. Sananda Ganguly, Advocate\n\n\nFor the Respondent Bank : Mr. Avratosh Majumder, Advocate\n Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate\n\n\n\n\nHeard on : 20.07.2018, 03.08.2018, 27.08.2018,\n 10.09.2018, 14.09.2018, 28.09.2018,\n 05.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 25.01.2018,\n 04.02.2019, 15.02.2019, 22.02.2019,\n 04.03.2019, 11.04.2019 & 17.04.2019.\n\n\n\nJudgment on : July 12, 2019.\n Samapti Chatterjee, J.\n\n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 29, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 163, "end": 181, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 268, "end": 282, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 350, "end": 370, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 417, "end": 437, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 483, "end": 498, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 546, "end": 563, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 609, "end": 624, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1025, "end": 1043, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No 366 of 2022\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No 8208 of 2020)\n\n\n The Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd\n Patiala & Ors .... Appellant(s)\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n Jaswinder Singh ....Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n Order\n", "entities": [ { "start": 54, "end": 76, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 320, "end": 369, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 532, "end": 547, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "1\n\n ssp pil80groupwithospil82 .doc\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Public Interest Litigation No.80 Of 2013 \n Along With\n Civil Application No.54 Of 2016, \n Civil Application No.86 Of 2016, \n Civil Application No.114 Of 2015, \n Civil Application No.134 Of 2015,\n Civil Application No.33 Of 2017, \n Civil Application No.50 Of 2017\n\n\n Rajiv Mohan Mishra ...Petitioner\n vs.\n City and Industrial Development\n Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.\n And others ...Respondents.\n\n Pil/80/2013\n Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Datta Mane\n for the Petitioner \n Mr.G.S.Hegde i/b G.S.Hegde & Associates for the\n respondent No.1 \n Ms Shyamali Gadre i/b Little & Co for the respondent\n No.2 \n Mr.Sandeep Marne for the respondent No.3 \n Mr.Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A. B.\n Vagyani, Gp with Ms Shruti Vyas, Agp `B' Panel and\n Mr.Rohan Mirpury for the Respondent Nos.4,5 and 9 \n Mr.Sanjay Singhavi, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Rahul\n Kamerkar for applicant in Cai/33/2017 and\n Cai/50/2017\n Mr.Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the applicant in\n Cai/54/2016 \n\n Along With\n Writ Petition No.4927 Of 2017 \n\n Bhausaheb Baban Khedkar & Ors. ...Petitioners\n vs.\n Maharashtra Industrial Development\n Corporation and others ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:43 :::\n 2\n\n Along With\n Writ Petition No.7167 Of 2017\n\n Krishna Jotiba Naik ...Petitioner\n vs.\n Maharashtra Industrial Development\n Corporation and others ...Respondents\n\n Wp/4927/2018 With Wp/7167/2017\n\n Mr.Sanjay Singhavi, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Rahul \n Kamerkar for the petitioner\n Ms Shyamali Gadre I/b Little & Co. for the \n respondent No.1\n Mr.Sandeep V. Marne for the respondent No.2\n Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani, \n Gp a/w Mr.Manish Pabale, Agp a/w Ms Shruti Vyas, Agp\n `B' Panel and Mr.Rohan Mirpury for the respondent \n No.3\n\n\n With \n Public Interest Litigation No.138 Of 2012 \n\n Mayura Maru ...Petitioner\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent\n\n\n Pil/138/2012\n\n Mr.Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.B.\n Vagyani, Gp with Mr.Manish Pabale, Agp with Ms\n Shruti Vyas, Agp `B' Panel and Mr.Rohan Mirpury for\n the respondent No.1 \n Mr.G.S.Hegde I/b G.S.Hegde & Associates for the\n respondent No.2\n Mr.Sandeep Marne for the respondent No.3\n\n Along With \n Public Interest Litigation No.29 Of 2018 \n \n\n Vivek Velankar ...Petitioner \n vs.\n State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:43 :::\n 3\n\n\n Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Prathamesh \n B. Bhargude and Mr.Ranjit Shinde and Mr.Ajinkya \n Udane for the petitioner.\n Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani, \n Gp with Mr.Manish Pabale, Agp a/w Ms Shruti Vyas, \n Agp `B' Panel and Mr.Rohan Mirpury for the \n respondent Nos.1 and 2.\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Public Interest Litigation No.82 Of 2017 \n \n\n Janhit Manch ...Petitioner \n vs.\n The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent\n\n Mr.Jalan Sandeep for the petitioner\n Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Geeta Shastri,\n Addl.G.P. and Mr.Amit Shastri, for the respondent \n State. \n\n\n Coram : A.S.Oka And A.K.Menon, Jj. \n\n\n Date On Which Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 94, "end": 128, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 582, "end": 600, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 655, "end": 720, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 810, "end": 823, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 856, "end": 868, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 896, "end": 905, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 914, "end": 923, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 977, "end": 991, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1040, "end": 1053, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1087, "end": 1098, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1134, "end": 1151, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1164, "end": 1175, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1201, "end": 1214, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1255, "end": 1272, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1305, "end": 1321, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1384, "end": 1409, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1556, "end": 1579, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1630, "end": 1678, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1960, "end": 1979, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2034, "end": 2082, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2178, "end": 2193, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2218, "end": 2235, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2260, "end": 2274, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2324, "end": 2340, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2370, "end": 2381, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2406, "end": 2417, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2432, "end": 2445, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2458, "end": 2469, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2494, "end": 2507, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2632, "end": 2643, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 2695, "end": 2715, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2767, "end": 2778, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2811, "end": 2825, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2844, "end": 2859, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2881, "end": 2892, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2916, "end": 2929, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2962, "end": 2971, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3042, "end": 3055, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3178, "end": 3192, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 3254, "end": 3274, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 3453, "end": 3465, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3490, "end": 3515, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3523, "end": 3536, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3544, "end": 3560, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3586, "end": 3597, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3622, "end": 3633, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3649, "end": 3662, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3675, "end": 3686, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3713, "end": 3726, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3902, "end": 3914, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 3979, "end": 3999, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 4044, "end": 4057, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4082, "end": 4093, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4117, "end": 4130, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4151, "end": 4163, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 4207, "end": 4214, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 4220, "end": 4229, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Cra-D-568-Db of 2011 1\n\n In The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At\n Chandigarh\n\n\n(1) Cra-D-568-Db of 2011\n\nShyam Singh and another\n .... Appellants\n\n Versus\nState of Haryana\n ..... Respondent\n\n(2) Cra-D-592-Db of 2011\n\nPardeep Soni @ Mintu and another\n .... Appellants\n\n Versus\nState of Haryana\n ..... Respondent\n\n\n Reserved on : 08.02.2019\n Date of decision : 26.02.2019\n\n\nCoram :- Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh\n\n\nPresent: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, with\n Mr. Vishal R. Lamba and Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocates,\n for the appellants (in Cra-D-568-Db of 2011).\n\n Mr. J.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate, with\n Mr. Harsimranjeet Kaur and Mr. Shivansh Mahi, Advocates,\n for the appellants (in Cra-D-592-Db of 2011)\n\n Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.\n\n Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate,\n for the complainant.\n\n ***\n\n\n 1 of 39\n ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2019 07:41:28 :::\n Cra-D-568-Db of 2011 2\n\nRajiv Sharma, J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 79, "end": 146, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 224, "end": 235, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 370, "end": 386, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 537, "end": 557, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 692, "end": 708, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 919, "end": 931, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 964, "end": 976, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 995, "end": 1006, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1046, "end": 1061, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1070, "end": 1087, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1175, "end": 1184, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1224, "end": 1242, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1251, "end": 1264, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1351, "end": 1364, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1404, "end": 1414, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1644, "end": 1656, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Carbp-196 of 2016.odt\n\n\nrrpillai\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 196 Of 2016\n With\n Notice Of Motion No. 708 Of 2018\n\n\n Yogesh Mehra ... Petitioner\n vs.\n 1. Enercon GmbH ... Respondents\n 2. Wobben Properties Gmbh\n 3. Wind World India Limited\n 4. Ajay Mehra\n With\n Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 205 Of 2016\n With\n Notice Of Motion No. 726 Of 2018\n\n\n Ajay Mehra ... Petitioner\n vs.\n 1. Enercon GmbH . ... Respondents\n 2. Wobben Properties Gmbh\n 3. Wind World India Limited\n 4. Yogesh Mehra\n With\n Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 16 Of 2017\n With\n Notice Of Motion (L) No.1655 Of 2018\n\n\n Wind World (India) Limited ... Petitioner\n vs.\n 1. Enercon GmbH ... Respondents\n 2. Wobben Properties gmbH\n 3. Mr. Yogesh Mehra\n 4. Mr. Ajay Mehra\n\n 1 of 58\n\n\n\n ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 07:22:37 :::\n Carbp-196 of 2016.odt\n\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Bimal Rajshekhar for the Petitioner in\nCarbp/205/2016.\n\n\nDr. Birendra Saraf a/w. Mr. Ranjit Carvalho, Ms. Sanaya Dadachanji, Mr. Rohit\nLalwani i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Petitioner in Carbp/196/2016 and\nRespondent no. 4 in Carbp/205/2016 and Respondent no. 3 in Carbp/16/2017.\n\n\nMr. Zal Andhyarujina a/w. Mr. Kartikeya Desai, Mr. Karan Bhide and Mr. Asadali\nMazgaonwala i/b. M/s. Kartikeya & Associate for Petitioner in Carbp/16/2017.\n\n\nMr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy,\nMr. Vivek Vashi, Mrs. Kanika Sharma Goenka, Ms. Shaheda Madrasawala,Ms. Swati\nKhinvasara and Mr. Cyrus Jal i/b. Vashi and Vashi for Respondent no. 1 and 2 in\nCarbp/196/2016.\n\n\nMr. S. U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sarosh Bharucha, Mr. Jehangir\nJejeebhoy, Mr. Vivek Vashi, Mrs. Kanika Sharma Goenka, Ms. Shaheda\nMadraswala,Ms. Swati Khinvasara and Mr. Cyrus Jal i/b. Vashi and Vashi for\nRespondent no. 1 and 2 in Carbp/205/2016.\n\n\nMr. Janak Dwarkadas. Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Mr. Vivek\nVashi, Mrs. Kanika Sharma Goenka, Ms. Shaheda Madraswala,Ms. Swati Khinvasara\nand Mr. Cyrus Jal i/b. Vashi and Vashi for Respondent no. 1 and 2 in\nCarbp/16/2016.\n Coram : A.K. Menon, J.\n Reserved Date : 14 th August, 2018\n Prounounced On : 14 th December, 2018\n\n\n\nJudgment\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 100, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 373, "end": 385, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 483, "end": 495, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 573, "end": 595, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 610, "end": 634, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 649, "end": 659, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 916, "end": 926, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1026, "end": 1038, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1116, "end": 1138, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1153, "end": 1177, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1192, "end": 1204, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1462, "end": 1488, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1572, "end": 1584, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1662, "end": 1679, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1703, "end": 1715, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1734, "end": 1744, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 2050, "end": 2061, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2088, "end": 2104, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2149, "end": 2163, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2173, "end": 2188, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2194, "end": 2211, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2217, "end": 2230, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2236, "end": 2256, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2384, "end": 2400, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2410, "end": 2425, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2431, "end": 2442, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2451, "end": 2470, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2542, "end": 2553, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2580, "end": 2592, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2598, "end": 2616, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2622, "end": 2633, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2640, "end": 2660, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2666, "end": 2685, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2690, "end": 2706, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2715, "end": 2724, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2798, "end": 2810, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2837, "end": 2852, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2858, "end": 2876, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2882, "end": 2893, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2900, "end": 2920, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2926, "end": 2944, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2949, "end": 2965, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2974, "end": 2983, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3057, "end": 3072, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3099, "end": 3117, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3123, "end": 3134, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3141, "end": 3161, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3167, "end": 3185, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3190, "end": 3206, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3215, "end": 3224, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 3339, "end": 3349, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "dss 1 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Writ Petition No. 10835 Of 2018\n\n Xyz ... Petitioner\n Versus\n Union of India and ors. ... Respondents\n\n Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) a/w. Ms\n Naira Jejeebhoy and Mr. Pheroze F. Mehta.\n Ms Gayatri Singh, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms Aditi Saxena, Ms\n Meenaz Kakalia and Mr. Kranti L.C. for the Petitioner.\n Mr. Anil C. Singh, A.S.G. a/w. Mrs. Purnima Awasti a/w Ms\n Anusha Pravin Amin and Ms Geetika Gandhi for Respondent\n Nos.1 and 3.\n Mr.AB. Vagyani, Government Pleader a/w. Mr Y.S. Khochare,\n Agp and Mr. P.P. More, Agp and Mr. Udayan Shah for\n Respondent No.2.\n Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms Priyanka Chavan, Ms\n Anupama Pawar I/b Mr. D.S. Shingade, Mr. Vinod Mahadik,\n Dr.Madhavi Patil and R.N. Cooper Hospital for Mcgm.\n\n With\n Writ Petition No. 9748 Of 2018\n Xyz ... Petitioner\n Versus\n Union of India and ors. ... Respondents\n\n Ms Gayatri Singh, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms Aditi Saxena, Ms\n Meenaz Kakalia and Mr. Kranti L.C. for the Petitioner.\n Mr.AB. Vagyani, Government Pleader a/w. Mr Y.S. Khochare,\n Agp and Mr. P.P. More, Agp and Mr. Udayan Shah for\n Respondent No.2.\n\n With\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Writ Petition (L) No. 3172 Of 2018\n\n Xyz ... Petitioner\n Versus\n Union of India and anr. ... Respondents\n Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the Petitioner.\n\n 1 of 78\n\n\n\n\n::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:27 :::\n dss 2 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc\n\n Ms Poornima Awasthi for Respondent No.1 - Uoi.\n Ms P.H. Kantharia,Government Pleader a/w. Ms Deepali\n Patankar, Assistant to G.P. for Respondent No.2- State.\n .....\n\n Coram : A. S. Oka And M. S. Sonak, Jj.\n\n\n Reserved On : 2nd November 2018. \n\n Pronounced On : 3rd April, 2019. \n\n Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 112, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 207, "end": 210, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 290, "end": 304, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 366, "end": 380, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 420, "end": 435, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 444, "end": 460, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 466, "end": 479, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 502, "end": 514, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 520, "end": 534, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 543, "end": 554, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 580, "end": 593, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 612, "end": 626, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 635, "end": 653, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 661, "end": 675, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 709, "end": 720, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 749, "end": 762, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 777, "end": 786, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 800, "end": 811, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 839, "end": 851, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 874, "end": 889, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 895, "end": 908, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 917, "end": 930, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 936, "end": 949, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 955, "end": 968, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1098, "end": 1101, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1173, "end": 1187, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1248, "end": 1261, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1284, "end": 1296, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1302, "end": 1316, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1325, "end": 1336, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1361, "end": 1372, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1401, "end": 1414, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1429, "end": 1438, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1452, "end": 1463, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1629, "end": 1632, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 1712, "end": 1726, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1787, "end": 1803, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2072, "end": 2088, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2120, "end": 2134, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2162, "end": 2179, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2301, "end": 2310, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 2315, "end": 2326, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n Present\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran\n Tuesday, The 13Th Day Of July 2021 / 22Nd Ashadha, 1943\n Op(C) No. 446 Of 2021\n Against The Order Dated 06.02.02021 In E.A.No.780/2020 In\n E.P.No.565/2020 In Os 163/1977 Of I Additional District\n Court, Ernakulam,\nPetitioner:\n0\n\n\n\n George Varghese.P, Aged 55 Years\n Pandyamyalil House, Kanjiramattom.P.O,\n Ernakulam-682315.\n By Advs.\n Sri.P.Ravindran (Sr.)\n Shri.Sreekumar S\n Sri.N.Raghuraj\nRespondents:\n\n 1 Fr. A.J.Abraham, Aged 46 Years, S/O.A.T.Jacob,Vicar,St.Ignatius Orthodox Syrian Church,Kanjiramattom,Ernakulam District-682315. \n\n 2 K.I.Thankachan, Aged 53 Years, S/O Ittan,Trustee,St.Ignatius Orthodox Syrian Church,Kanjiramattom,Ernakulam District-682315. \n\n 3 Peter N Chacko, Aged 61 Years, S/O Chacko,Manager Elected,St.Ignatius Vocational Higher Secondary School,Kanjiramattom,Ernakulam District-682315, Nedumattathil House,Chethikkode.P.O, Ernakulam. \n\n 4 M.K.Geore, Vazhakkalayil House,Chethikkode.P.O, Ex-Trustee,St.Ignatius Orthodox Syrian Church,Kani- Ramattom,Ernakulam -682315. \n\n 5 M.T.Issac, Ex-Trustee,St.Ignatius Orthodox Syrian Church,Kan- Jiramattom,Ernakulam District-682315. \n\n 6 Saju P.Poulose, S/O Poulose,Pallamkunnel House,Chethicode, Kanjiramattom,Ernakulam District-682315(Ex- Trustee). \n\n 7 V.G.Kuriakose, Kaniyamparambil House,Ex-Trustee,Kanjiramattom, O.P.(C)No.446 of 2021 & :-2-:\nC.R.P.No.81 of 2021 Ernakulam District-682315. \n\n 8 The District Educational Officer, Office Of The District Educational Officer,Ernaku- Lam-682011. \n\n By Advs. \n\n Sri.S.Sreekumar (Sr.) Smt.Soumiya C.D This Op (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission Along With C.R.P.No.81 Of 2021 On 09.04.2021 And Thereafter On 04.06.2021, 08.06.2021, 21.06.2021 And 30.06.2021 For Further Arguments, The Court On 13.07.2021 Delivered The Following:\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran Tuesday, The 13Th Day Of July 2021 / 22Nd Ashadha, 1943 Crp No. 81 Of 2021 Against The Common Order Dated 06.02.02021 In E.P.No.565/2020 In Os 163/1977 Of The I Additional District Court, Ernakulam Revision Petitioners/Judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 40, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 116, "end": 132, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 430, "end": 447, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 577, "end": 588, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 611, "end": 622, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 638, "end": 648, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 670, "end": 681, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 799, "end": 813, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 929, "end": 943, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1128, "end": 1137, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1261, "end": 1270, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1366, "end": 1380, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1484, "end": 1497, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1633, "end": 1725, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 1745, "end": 1756, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 1767, "end": 1774, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 2037, "end": 2053, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench\n \n \n\nAfr\n \nReserved on 29.4.2019\n \nDelivered on 13.05.2019\n \nCase :- Criminal Appeal No. - 1426 of 2005\n \n\n \nAppellant :- Rama Pasi And Another\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- A.V.S. Chauhan,Manish Kumar Yadav (Amicu,R B S Rathaur,S N Pandey,S.M. Mohsin Zaidi\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate\n \nalong with \n \nCase :- Criminal Appeal No. - 1530 of 2005\n \n\n \nAppellant :- Matauley @ Khushi Ram\n \nRespondent :- The State Of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha,(Amicus Curie),Balram Singh,Dinesh Kumar,Manish Kumar Singh Yadav\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate\n \n\n \nHon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.\n\n\nHon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J. \n\n", "entities": [] }, { "text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad\n \n \n\nReserved on 01.04.2022\n \nDelivered on 12.04.2022\n \nCourt No. - 10\n \n\n \nCase :- Second Appeal No. - 203 of 2021\n \n\n \nAppellant :- M/S Reptakos Brett Company Limited\n \nRespondent :- M/S Utkarsh Granite Private Limited\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Agarwal, ,Akash Deep Srivastava\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- K.M. Tripathi,Krishna Mohan Tripathi,Sunil Kumar\n \n\n \nHon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.\n\n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 176, "end": 206, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 227, "end": 258, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 286, "end": 300, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 303, "end": 324, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 353, "end": 366, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 367, "end": 389, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 390, "end": 401, "label": "LAWYER" }, { "start": 415, "end": 435, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "True, our Constitution has no 'due process' clause or the VIII Amendment; but, in this branch of law, after R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the consequence is the same.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 22, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 108, "end": 155, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 160, "end": 209, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "(See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004 at p. \n\n 438.).", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 65, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "Their Lordships have said -- \"It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon's case was decided that --\"......", "entities": [ { "start": 101, "end": 108, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 134, "end": 140, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In para 13 of the plaint, it has been further averred that, \"When the plaintiffs asked the defendant to obtain requisite documents immediately, the defendant assured the plaintiffs that he would obtain the requisite documents and would be available on 29/12/2004 at the office of the Sub\u00adRegistrar, Geeta Colony, Delhi and would execute the sale deed\".", "entities": [ { "start": 252, "end": 262, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 313, "end": 318, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Counsel for appellants contended that who is the Jagirdar against whom the legal fiction is to apply, is not pleaded by the claim petitioners and the scope and ambit of Rule 2 of the Rules regarding 'Grant of Pattadari rights in non-Khalsa villages', 1356 Fasli framed under Section 172 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is nebulous.", "entities": [ { "start": 169, "end": 175, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 275, "end": 286, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 294, "end": 326, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Further, section 19(3) of the SG Act specifies that unless a different intention appears, rules contained in section 20 to 24 rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property and goods is to passed to the buyer.", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 22, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 30, "end": 36, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 109, "end": 125, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Hence, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act; as well as Sections 120B and 193 of the IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs 1.5 lakhs.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 66, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 77, "end": 93, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 101, "end": 107, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 120, "end": 141, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 149, "end": 152, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The LoA stipulated that:\n\n \"17. The allotment of said land is subject to the outcome of the Appeal Suit No. 274/2007 in (OS No. 155/05), WP Nos. 19670/07, 20667/07 and 22043/07 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.\" \n\n PART A 4", "entities": [ { "start": 92, "end": 116, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 121, "end": 134, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 137, "end": 176, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 204, "end": 232, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n\n\n\n The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-7, Pune, dated 22.05.2018 relating to assessment year 2015-16 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). \n\n2.", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 87, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 151, "end": 165, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 173, "end": 193, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In this context, we have also to bear in mind the exposition of law by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh [(1964) 4 SCR 964 : AIR 1964 SC 521] .", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 91, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 95, "end": 163, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\"..........Deficiencies in investigation by way of omissions and lapses on the part of investigating agency cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of the prosecution case.\" \n\n Hon'ble the Supreme Court has again in the case of Surajit Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal36, has addressed the issue and held that:-\n49.", "entities": [ { "start": 196, "end": 209, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 235, "end": 276, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "If a Family Court before which an application is made under Section 7 of the Act finds that the minor whose guardianship is sought in the application, ordinarily resides within its territorial jurisdiction, such Family Court is bound to entertain the application and decide that application on merit in accordance with law.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 69, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In this regard in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat decided by hon'ble Apex Court in Crl Appeal no. 508/2019 decided on 15.03.2019, it has been held as under:\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 62, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 82, "end": 92, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 96, "end": 119, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 131, "end": 141, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "A claim for arrears of rent has also been held to be an actionable claim (State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh [1952 SCR 889 : AIR 1952 SC 252] , SCR at p. 910).", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 160, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "On 14th February, 2018, one Mr. Amar N. \n\nBarot, General Secretary of the Textile Labour Association made a mention before the court that the judgment in the case may either be dictated or the matter may be released and sent to the regular bench. \n\n2.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 22, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 32, "end": 47, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 74, "end": 100, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "This will be clarified in the instant case by comparison of sub- section (1) of Section 15 with sub-section (1) of Section 15-A.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, the Minister for Legislative Affairs at 10 a.m. on 13.03.2018 stood up and directly recommended for expulsion of 2 members and suspension of 11 members and the Speaker immediately accepted and expelled both the petitioners and suspended the others without there being any deliberation, discussion, debate or giving reasonable opportunity to explain their version before expelling them.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 70, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted by the Counsel for the State, that in the compliance report dated 9-11-2020, it was mentioned that the respondents no. 3 to 5 have been line-attached, but looking to the seriousness of the misconduct committed by them, today, they have been placed under suspension.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 91, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The contention of Mr. Datta, therefore, has been that learned Judges of this Court have uniformly held, upon duly reading the said order, that the retired employees are entitled to pension from the date of refund and there being no valid reason for taking a different view, there is no need for clarification of the said order; accordingly, G.A. No. 464 of 2018 merits outright dismissal.", "entities": [ { "start": 22, "end": 27, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 341, "end": 361, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The defendant no. 9 also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, wherein it was averred that the plaintiff neither filed the suit in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Court Fee and Suit valuation (Amendment) Act, 2009 nor in accordance with the provisions of Section 304 of the Municipality Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 67, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 68, "end": 71, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 175, "end": 235, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 277, "end": 288, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 296, "end": 312, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": " another writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was again filed being W.P.(C) No.616 of 2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.07.2020, the order is extracted herein under:\n\n \u201cAfter arguing for sometime, Mr. Sanjay Hegde,\n learned senior counsel", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 60, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 68, "end": 89, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 134, "end": 156, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 216, "end": 226, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 344, "end": 358, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "When a statute is impugned under Article 14 what the court has to decide is whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it must be struck down.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 43, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down by ITAT.", "entities": [ { "start": 95, "end": 99, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 3. B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 42, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [AIR 1967 SC 1480 : (1967) 2 SCR 650 : 20 STC 215] it was observed, \u2018it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein\u2019.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 100, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The existing highway has only two lane and approximately 25 meters wide land.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "No doubt, the benefit of the scheme will be available from the specified date, irrespective of the fact when the concerned Government servant actually retired from service.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Hence, the contention that has been raised by Plaintiffs being a fact in issue, same is the subject matter of A.S NO.86/2019 evidence which cannot be appreciated by this Court in the present suit.", "entities": [ { "start": 110, "end": 124, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "In pursuance to the aforesaid decision, A-1 to A-13 went to the residence of the deceased on 18.07.2002 at about 9:30 p.m. in three material objects, namely, - (i) an auto-rickshaw, (ii) a motorbike, and (iii) a jeep, armed with deadly weapons like swords, knives, chopper, etc.", "entities": [ { "start": 93, "end": 103, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\nMr. Kapur also submitted that if one lifted the veil of SEARS and Sarda one would find that these two entities were creatures of Govind Sarda and his group.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 11, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 131, "end": 143, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Sri Iyer, Senior Advocate sought to read the aforesaid judgement where the contents of the White Paper issued by the Central Government quoted to suggest that these are the findings of the Government of India having taken note by the Apex Court and, therefore, should be treated to be concluded.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 8, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 117, "end": 135, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 189, "end": 208, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 234, "end": 244, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner Sukhbir Kataria, who is accused no.14 in Criminal Complaint bearing No.74136 dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'Om Parkash Vs. Satish Kumar and others' seeks quashing of the same alongwith the summoning order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P-2), whereby he had been summoned to face trial under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 30, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 56, "end": 91, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 98, "end": 108, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 135, "end": 173, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 238, "end": 248, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 314, "end": 347, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 348, "end": 351, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Apex Court, however, observed that applying of belting system for grant of compensation was not appropriate and, therefore, compensation for 'B' category area was also enhanced to the one as determined by the Hon'ble High Court for 'A' category.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 14, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-4) must have been appreciated in the light of the background of the case; more so, the prosecutrix (PW-4) was reluctant to go back to the house of her aunt and complained the act of sexual intercourse committed by the respondent-accused to her teachers, Pooja Mahajan (PW-1) and Ritubala (PW-2).", "entities": [ { "start": 291, "end": 304, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 316, "end": 324, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "In case of Property Owners Association and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in MANU/MH/0735/2019, the Bombay high Court has held as under:\n \" 181.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 111, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 117, "end": 134, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\nDigitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 31. Claimant(s) to respond to the offer of the Insurance Company within 30 days", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Apex Court in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. & ors (supra) has framed legal issues which are as under :\n\n respondent can be carried on along with the SARFAESI proceedings simultaneously ? \n\n B.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 14, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 35, "end": 65, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 171, "end": 179, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "I cannot understand when even according to the police the said information was received on telephone how and what basis a computer photograph could be prepared.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, this is not the only kind of fee which can be charged.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n v) In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh4, the Apex Court relying on the principle laid down by it in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra [1961 AIR 600] and Maru Ram2 held that power under Articles - 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India is absolute and cannot be lettered by any statutory provision, such .", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 43, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 49, "end": 59, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 104, "end": 162, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 167, "end": 176, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 199, "end": 220, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 228, "end": 249, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Shri Parasaran further submits that the fundamental right of the Muslim community under Article 25, to offer namaz, is not affected because the Babri Masjid was not a mosque with particular significance for that religion.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 14, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 88, "end": 98, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Correspondingly, by delegated legislation incorporated by the Central Government, it may extend that time limit.", "entities": [ { "start": 62, "end": 80, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "On facts, the front side open space usurpations by the petitioner are in excess of 50% and on one side 33 1/3 % and it is impossible to manoeuvre even a mobile fire fighting equipment through one metre passage on that side and reasons for violation not forthcoming.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Pertinently, Plot no. 8, which is a part of Zone C, is not a part of the central vista region.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The complainant, along with other neighbours, went to search deceased Dharam Chand on 8 th February, 1999 and at village Bhagwanpura, outside the godown of brother deceased Dharam Chand, found his motorcycle but his whereabouts were not made known.", "entities": [ { "start": 70, "end": 82, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 86, "end": 105, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 121, "end": 132, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 173, "end": 185, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "It includes articles having the characteristics of textile floor coverings (e.g., thickness, stiffness and strength) but intended for use for other purposes (for example, as wall hangings or table covers or for other furnishing purposes). \n\n ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "And which power to designate inter-State supply also comes from Articles 246A, 269A(1) read with 269A(5) as discussed earlier.", "entities": [ { "start": 64, "end": 104, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Further, the Assessing Officer is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.7,59,185/- in HDFC Bank, Fort, Mumbai and Rs.34,265/- in State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai within a period of one week from today.", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 94, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 96, "end": 100, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 102, "end": 108, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 128, "end": 147, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 149, "end": 156, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 158, "end": 164, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n2. T. Vasanthakumar -vs- Vijayakumari, reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2240 wherein it has held that Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.138 and 139 - C.C.NO.7919/2017 Dishonour of Cheque - Appeal against acquittal - Cheque as well as signature on it not disputed by accused respondent -", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 61, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 62, "end": 75, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 106, "end": 145, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 165, "end": 181, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The petition was filed through Sh. Vijay Pahwa, General Power of Attorney and it was asserted in the petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act that 1 of 23 50% share of the demised premises had been purchased by the landlord from Sh. Vinod Malhotra vide sale deed No.4226 registered on 20.12.2007 with Sub Registrar, Chandigarh.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 46, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 116, "end": 128, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 136, "end": 144, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 236, "end": 250, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 288, "end": 298, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 319, "end": 329, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "It is seen from the record that the arbitration proceedings were held by Arbitrator Ms. Rashmi Jain, Advocate at her office at Shop No.12, Club Road Market, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "According to her, the patient arrived at 21.23 hours and was examined at 21.25 hours.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Such signed statements are covered by the definition of ''document'' given in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 87, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 95, "end": 114, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "He had not seen any other shop of Imambaksh and Jameel.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 43, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 48, "end": 54, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "But the revisit should not be fact- centric or quantum-centric.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "We note that the Finance Bill, 2021 has brought in an amendment which disallows the employees' contribution made in PF and ESI if not made within the due date as prescribed by the respective statutes (PF and ESI Act).", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 35, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 201, "end": 215, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "PW1, in his evidence, has categorically stated that the deceased Mukhtar Ahmed was elected as the Chairman of the Municipality, Jaspur in the election prior to the election at the time of occurrence and that his wife Smt. Sameena Begum had contested the next election for the post of the Chairman against Smt. Farida Begum and Sameena Begum had lost that election.", "entities": [ { "start": 65, "end": 78, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 128, "end": 134, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 222, "end": 235, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 310, "end": 322, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 327, "end": 340, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "There is another important factor which is taken for consideration is that the alleged sample was taken on 26.07.1992 and it was sent to the Chemical Examiner on 12.08.1992.", "entities": [ { "start": 107, "end": 117, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 162, "end": 172, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Sri Sunil B.Ganu, learned counsel, would however press into service Section 14(3)(c) and assert that the plaintiffs suit is barred thereunder.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 16, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 68, "end": 84, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C.2'. \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 86, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 91, "end": 152, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The management witness Shri Gopinath Dasgupta - DRM North Bengal Regional Office, Ramprakash Sarkar - sub- staff Mahabirsthan Branch as well as Ms. Omit Namchu management witness stated in their examination in chief that the appellant made a confessional statement in writing accepting the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.23,000/-only from the bank account of Shri Mrinal Kanti Ghosh.", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 45, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 82, "end": 99, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 148, "end": 159, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 361, "end": 379, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The origins of the law can also 80 of 164 be traced to the principles of natural justice, as developed in the following cases: in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law.", "entities": [ { "start": 130, "end": 179, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In the first minutes no explanation was given for increase in the authorized share capital of the company whereas in the second it was stated that funds were needed to make repayment of loans of the creditors.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Applying the law aforesaid, the acquisition of land stood completed on publication of Section 3G declaration and the same remains unaffected.", "entities": [ { "start": 86, "end": 96, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "He also deposed that he examined PW-1 and after her examination additional offences under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of PITA, Act i.e. ITP Act and Sections 294, 376 & 34 RPC were added on different dates.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 109, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 113, "end": 122, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 128, "end": 135, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 140, "end": 162, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 163, "end": 166, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but (2014) 2 SCC 1 to register an FIR forthwith.", "entities": [ { "start": 116, "end": 130, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Thereafter, he was told about his legal rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act 1985 and a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act 1985 was served to him.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 63, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 71, "end": 84, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 104, "end": 114, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 122, "end": 135, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This is because prima facie every legislation is prospective (see para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Janardan Reddy v. The State reported in AIR 1951 SC 124).", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 98, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 111, "end": 166, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In this connection, reference may be had to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Narayana Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1987 AP 53 : 1987 Lab IC 152 : (1986) 2 Andh LT 258] , striking down the enhancement of reservation from 25% to 44% for OBCs.", "entities": [ { "start": 75, "end": 100, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 104, "end": 194, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n i) An order of injunction, attachment or appointment of a receiver can be initiated only at the instance of the bank or the financial institution.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020, dated 07.05.2021 KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] during pandemic......\" \n\n\"10.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 39, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 47, "end": 57, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 58, "end": 85, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 94, "end": 143, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Before re-appreciating the evidence, we would like to make it clear at the first instance itself that though charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 invoking offences under Sections 120B, 212, 302, 147, 148, 149, 506B of IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act", "entities": [ { "start": 182, "end": 226, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 230, "end": 233, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 238, "end": 248, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 252, "end": 267, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Chapter XIII deals with offences, punishments for violation of various clauses of the Act and procedures thereon.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 12, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, crime No. 136/2018 under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered on 22.05.2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 50, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 54, "end": 57, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 76, "end": 86, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Clause (1) of the agreement provided that the agent would be allowed 5% commission on the total value of the order.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "So a person cannot be both, a ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is not in dispute that there is no witness to the fact alleged by the NIA that appellants/accused persons used the bicycles to purchase and planted bombs causing explosion at Malegaon.", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 76, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 178, "end": 186, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Chapter-X of the Indian Railways Code for the Engineering Department, issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Government of India, relates to the custody, management and disposal of land.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 9, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 17, "end": 37, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 84, "end": 141, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": ", in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020, a judgment delivered on 26.03.2021, this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court, including the judgment in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., (2020) 15 SCC 1 [\u201cBabulal\u201d], then held:\n \u201c35", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 75, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 101, "end": 111, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 203, "end": 301, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n C.C.No.2468/2018 That, the accused shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.90,000/- and in default of deposit of said fine amount, he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for one month.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 19, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The accused agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and towards the repayment of the said amount, the accused had issued a cheque dated 14.10.2008 in favor of the complainant for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs.", "entities": [ { "start": 171, "end": 181, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Our attention was drawn to Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. V. ITO, Circle I, Ward A, Rajkot, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) which records that the Assessing Officer entrusted with the task of calculating and realizing tax should familiarize themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject.", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 116, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, the statement of witness A.D.2 Bhag Chand Khateek cannot be considered distrust worthy that his name in the charge sheet is not mentioned as witness.\" \n(emphasis supplied)\n \n 28.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 60, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce herein below Section 23 of the DV Act, which reads as under:-\n 23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 70, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 78, "end": 84, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as a member of Town Panchayath, Sargur, from ward No.11 of Sargur Town, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysuru District and has been serving the public since 2015.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 103, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 124, "end": 135, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 137, "end": 151, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 153, "end": 168, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n i) The learned Counsel referred to the earlier litigation filed by Mr.L.M.Menezes and others in Application No.567/2002.", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 84, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 99, "end": 122, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner, Dr. Gollapalli Madhuri, who is serving on the post of Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Narayanakhed, Sanga Reddy District, has challenged the constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated 29/30.10.2014 issued by the Government of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 38, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 87, "end": 144, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 226, "end": 239, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 254, "end": 273, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The principle of proportionality has been recognized by this Court in Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Union of India16 wherein it was stated that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of offences.", "entities": [ { "start": 70, "end": 110, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "It is also mentioned that a letter has been sent to the Radiology Department.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "After deducting 30% towards income tax, the income would be Rs.19,639/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Sri Arun Kumar Rai, Ld. Counsel for the accused has raised the point that P.W.1 Anand Kumar Keshri told in para 3 of his deposition that the accused was firing inside the Shop had pistols in his both hands.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 18, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 80, "end": 98, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Even though the assessee during the assessment proceedings, mentioned that the supply of machinery for TPD Plant and the installation and commissioning services are separate and independent of each other, a careful perusal of this document reveal that as per the terms and conditions of the contract the effective mandate given to the assessee is in the nature of composite contract .", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The defendant No.1 continued to manage the affairs of the mill till 1989 when he resigned.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It was observed that judgment in B.K. Pavitra (I) held that no exercise as mandated by Nagaraj was undertaken by the State of Karnataka before providing reservation in promotion and providing consequential seniority and the State had not collected quantifiable data on the three parameters.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 87, "end": 94, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 117, "end": 135, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Thus, on the basis of these documents when the shop number and address of the shop is not known these factual aspects of the matter cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.12837 of 2019 is also dismissed.", "entities": [ { "start": 192, "end": 222, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Such Award dated 12.07.2012 has been proved as Ex. R-1.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 27, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Challenging the same, the State of Telangana filed Civil Appeal No.4060-61 of 2020 in the Supreme Court of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 26, "end": 44, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 51, "end": 82, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 90, "end": 112, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In 1985, the provisions of the Rent Act as applicable to the State of Punjab were amended by the Legislature of the State of Punjab vide Punjab Act 2 of 1985 by inserting new Sections 13A, 18A and 18B, a new Second Schedule and amendments in Sections 13 and 19 substantially similar to those that had been effected by Ordinance 14 of 1976.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 39, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 61, "end": 76, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 97, "end": 131, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 137, "end": 157, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 175, "end": 200, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 242, "end": 260, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "One of the arguments raised in Sibbia, as also in the present case, was that the power to grant anticipatory bail ought to be left to the discretion of the court concerned, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Ground Water Potential Assessment was done as on March 2009 and the Panchayat Union Blocks in Tamil Nadu were categorized as Over Exploited, Critical, Semi Critical, Safe and Saline blocks and this categorization was approved by the Government vide G.O(Ms).No.52, Public Works(R2)Department dated 02.03.2012.", "entities": [ { "start": 94, "end": 104, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 297, "end": 307, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (d) Whether Section 68 of the Amendment Act, 1988 continues to subsist regardless of the coming into force of Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act in relation to matters that were filed in the High Court prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, 1988?", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 25, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 33, "end": 52, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 113, "end": 130, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 238, "end": 257, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In the present case, no steps were admittedly taken by the plaintiff to transfer the suit to a commercial suit by applying before the Commercial Appellate Division by invoking Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 176, "end": 189, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 197, "end": 218, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The municipal corporations in the State of Maharashtra like in any other part of the country are vested with the power to demolish structures which violate the laws and have been built without any building plans or in violation of the laws.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 54, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "He pointed out that on two occasions, the State Government came out with a policy for regularization and this Court held that the policy was illegal on the ground that it is not consistent with the law.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "When I.A.No.804 of 2019 for impleadment itself is not permissible, the question of granting ancillary relief in I.A.No.803 of 2019 does not arise and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 23, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 112, "end": 130, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Provided that, the above reservation shall not be applicable to the posts reserved in favour of the Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Scheduled Areas of the State under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India as per the notification issued on the 9th June 2014 in this behalf.", "entities": [ { "start": 174, "end": 188, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 196, "end": 217, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 256, "end": 269, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Third and most importantly, it is unfair on part of the respondent insurer to contest grant of future prospects considering their submission before the High Court that such compensation ought not to be paid pending outcome of the Pranay Sethi (supra) reference.", "entities": [ { "start": 230, "end": 242, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The respondents to the revision are selfsame revision respondents in CRP.No.191 of 2014 supra besides one N.Laxmamma W/o. Laxmaiah. \n 2(a).", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 87, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 106, "end": 116, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 122, "end": 130, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "There are therefore legal formalities to be carried out for the constitution of a Welfare Board.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The amended provision came to be considered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 215.The", "entities": [ { "start": 71, "end": 87, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 91, "end": 174, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "It is also noted that this Court and the Supreme Court has interpreted Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and Rule 3 of Chapter-VI of Old Rules to mean the period of 90 days for filing the written statement is not mandatory and for good, valid and sufficient cause being shown, the time for filing written statement beyond 90 days can be extended.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 54, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 71, "end": 88, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 92, "end": 95, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 100, "end": 120, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "He had seen the dead body from distance of about 6 - 7 steps which was a Skeleton without flesh which was seen by him in truck.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "After 4-5 days, a further demand of Rs.5.000 was made by Hariram, which was paid by Chhotelal (2 Wi10)}.", "entities": [ { "start": 57, "end": 64, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 84, "end": 93, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "From the above material, it is clear that third parties/pattedars were in long possession of land in Survey No.172 of Hydernagar Village.", "entities": [ { "start": 118, "end": 136, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant in M.A.C.M.A. No.685 of 2006 is partly allowed, while setting aside and modifying the order and decree dated 18.1.2006 in O.P.No.493 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 74, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 155, "end": 164, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 168, "end": 186, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 206, "end": 288, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the ", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 58, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 66, "end": 92, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "A policy-oriented interpretation, when a welfare legislation falls for determination, especially in the context of a developing country, is sanctioned by principle and precedent and is implicit in Article 37 of the Constitution since the judicial branch is, in a sense, part of the State.", "entities": [ { "start": 197, "end": 207, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 215, "end": 227, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The next contention revolves around the role of the AICTE and the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 57, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 82, "end": 95, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 99, "end": 123, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "This according to the learned senior counsel, has also been accepted by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra).", "entities": [ { "start": 76, "end": 86, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 90, "end": 104, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "If the respondents no. 3 and 5 were of the view that the petitioner is the same person against whom reward of Rs. 5000 has been declared by the S.P., Gwalior, then there was no impediment for arresting the petitioner formally.", "entities": [ { "start": 150, "end": 157, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Sub Section 5 of Section 3 stipulates that the State Government W.A.No.755/2021 & con. cases :: 81 ::\n shall, for applying the reservation under sub-section (1), by a notified order, issue a roster which shall be continuously applied till it is exhausted.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 26, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 64, "end": 79, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 145, "end": 160, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The Court must carefully examine if false averments, evasive or false denials are introduced, in deciding a case, and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Further assume that the claimant supplies the output Y having value of Rs. 3,000/- during the relevant period for which the refund is being claimed.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Learned Counsel for Pranab argued that no mortgage was created in favour of Bank in respect of the said properties.", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 26, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "They were Nakul, Neha, Shruti, Ritu, Rajesh and Ashok Kumar Goenka, all living in Kamdhenu Building, 4A Ray Street, Kolkata - 700020.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 15, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 17, "end": 21, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 23, "end": 29, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 31, "end": 35, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 37, "end": 43, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 48, "end": 66, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 116, "end": 123, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Thereafter, on 28.11.2007 Vikas Garg, Nidhi Garg W/o Vikas Garg, Vinay Garg and Deepika Garg have taken a total loan of Rs.1,65,80,000/- through loan account nos. 14013241 and 14081767 (hereinafter referred to as the first loan) on an 11.5 % interest from a Non-Banking Financial company known as M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. New Delhi, mentioning themselves to be the Directors of Tirupati Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 25, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 26, "end": 36, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 38, "end": 48, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 53, "end": 63, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 65, "end": 75, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 80, "end": 92, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 301, "end": 345, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 346, "end": 355, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 402, "end": 431, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "His field and field of Ramjilal are adjoining to each other with a common mud boundary.", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 31, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The aforesaid statement falsified in the wake of statement of Satya Kumar Kasliwal (P.W.6) bank manager that the aforesaid pay orders were submitted for cancellation only on 26/11/2005 by A.R.Infrastructure and after cancellation, the amount has been credited in the account holder.", "entities": [ { "start": 62, "end": 82, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 174, "end": 184, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 188, "end": 206, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "(State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta ; Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank Ltd ; The State of A.P. v. M/s.Maheswari Minerals ).", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 38, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 41, "end": 98, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 105, "end": 144, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The land-owning agency later submitted a revised proposal to the Authority in respect of plot No. 1 (out of the eight plots), vide communication dated 31.1.2020.", "entities": [ { "start": 151, "end": 160, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Report of the incident was lodged by (PW-5) Rameshwar Pathak.", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 60, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "The writ applicant has paid 50% amount of arrears of tax to show his bonafide and also gave an undertaking to pay the remaining amount of tax after recording of transfer of ownership, as due to slowdown in the business, he could not be in a position to pay the full amount of tax, interest and penalty.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "We have also extensively heard Advocate Patil, counsel for petitioner in WP No. 2126 of 2018 who has posed a challenge to Section 4(3) of the Act and would submit that the Backward Class Commission cannot create a separate class.", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 73, "end": 92, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 122, "end": 134, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 172, "end": 197, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Same is the conclusion from State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas holding that when sanction is required from the act connected with the duty of the public servant, taking cognizance by a Court without sanction is incompetent and the error was so fundamental that invalidates the proceedings right from the stage of cognizance. \n\n 45(p).", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 56, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "PW2, wife of the deceased corroborated the testimony of PW1 while deposing that her son Dharmender (PW1) was caught hold by accused Manoj Nai, Rohit, Amit, Anil, Pankaj and Raja on the roof and they gave beatings to him.", "entities": [ { "start": 88, "end": 98, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 132, "end": 141, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 143, "end": 148, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 150, "end": 154, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 156, "end": 160, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 162, "end": 168, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 173, "end": 177, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In fact, before us, the ex\u00adDirector of the company in liquidation was represented by Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel and DEMPL was represented by Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 103, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 132, "end": 137, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 162, "end": 177, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In support of their contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment in Vithal Tukaram.", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 87, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "It is further submitted that Allahabad Bank (Consortium Member) has also filed an Application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002 before the Learned District Magistrate at Bhojpur, which is pending. \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 43, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 100, "end": 110, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 114, "end": 131, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 143, "end": 181, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The plaintiffs witnesses Tarachand (PW 2) and Mansingh (PW 3) further stated before the trial Court that after the sale deed was executed in their favour, their names have been recorded in the revenue records and they have deposited the property tax, the receipts were brought on record as Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/14 and the payment of water charges were brought on record as Ex.P/18.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 34, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 46, "end": 54, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Reintegration into society by means of confident and assertive occupations leading to a sense of self-worth will have to be devised.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied on the judgment in Deepak Mahajan (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with the similar issue in the context of the Customs Act and the FERA.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 56, "end": 70, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 99, "end": 112, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 173, "end": 184, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 193, "end": 197, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The certified copy of the award dated 05.01.2010 passed by 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 38/2009 and 39/2009 have been marked as Annexure P-9.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 48, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 59, "end": 105, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 109, "end": 143, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "And whereas, sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act provided for issuing of notification to make the provisions of the Act relating to, the determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and W.P.(C) No. 17110 of 2020 ::64::\nresettlement applicable to cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act;\n 60.", "entities": [ { "start": 13, "end": 43, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 51, "end": 63, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 206, "end": 231, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 330, "end": 345, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 353, "end": 365, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Satellite Town scheme for the land ad measuring 467 acres alone leaving out the remaining land.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The first respondent was called upon to secure outstanding debt equivalent to Indian Rs.1,742,04,53,503.56 (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Two Crore Four Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Three Rupees and Paise Fifty Six only) as on 22nd April 2020.", "entities": [ { "start": 251, "end": 266, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "They did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 44, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "There is also no power with the Executive/Respondents/Revenue to defer/postpone the implementation of Sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act, 2021 which includes the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. \n\n 43.", "entities": [ { "start": 102, "end": 118, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 126, "end": 143, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 175, "end": 194, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 202, "end": 222, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble court has passed an order below the said affidavit at Exhibit-35 that \"The documentary evidences at mark-34/1 to 34/59 referred to in the affidavit be exhibited on the condition that the evidentiary value of the same shall be determined at the stage of final hearing.\"", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Thus, in absence of any rules or regulations governing the service conditions of its employees, issuance of administrative order is permissible in law vide Meghalaya SEB v. Jagadindra Arjun [(2001) 6 SCC 446 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 976] .\u201d", "entities": [ { "start": 156, "end": 229, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.\" \n\n12.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 40, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 105, "end": 117, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Case No. 772/05 under Section 25(1)-B Arms Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri (Ext. Kha-3) were also submitted by them.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 15, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 22, "end": 37, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 38, "end": 46, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 48, "end": 88, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 03.07.2018", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 19, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 29, "end": 39, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The said application was taken up along with two other applications being A.P. No.129 of 2010 and A.P. No.776 of 2011 and a contempt application being C.C. No.3 of 2008 all filed by Rahul Maheshwari against Sheila Guha and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 29th November, 2011.", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 93, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 98, "end": 117, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 151, "end": 168, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 182, "end": 198, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 207, "end": 218, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 272, "end": 291, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Directions were sought for in these writ petitions for the release of the vehicles.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, the evidence of DW.3 is not a substitute for the evidence of Prasad.", "entities": [ { "start": 70, "end": 76, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n ix) In State of Haryana v. Jagdish and Harpal8, a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the case of the accused can be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction, and in case of liberal policy prevails on date of consideration of case of 'lifer' for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 49, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 79, "end": 89, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Though the bio-metric records of Dr.Wasia Naveed indicate that she was absent in the entire month of June 2018, her signatures are present in the attendance register of the same month.", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 48, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "He has further deposed that on 28.09.2017, he sent report regarding seizure and arrest of accused to the ACP.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 41, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, in the case of Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, reported in (1995)3 SCC 619, has held at paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:\n 19.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 62, "end": 82, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 90, "end": 111, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 128, "end": 140, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 153, "end": 191, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The fees charged for granting a permission or privilege to a person to do something, either heavy or moderate, not on the basis of the costs incurred by the Government, but upon the benefit that the individual receives, cannot but be regarded as a Tax.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The National Highways Authority being aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the Arbitrator approached the District Court, Nagpur by filing proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 31, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 108, "end": 130, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 159, "end": 169, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, without there being any enabling provision in this regard in the rules of 1983, the impugned order specially clause 3 of Government order dated 04/09/2020 is without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary.", "entities": [ { "start": 155, "end": 165, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 76, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 84, "end": 131, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The cadre controlling authority, considering the seniority list prepared by the committee circulated a tentative seniority list as on 01.01.2002 calling for objections.", "entities": [ { "start": 134, "end": 144, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying to quash the order dated 02.09.2019 under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj and the consequential letter dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (II), Prayagraj.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 92, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 99, "end": 109, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 117, "end": 219, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 225, "end": 237, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 274, "end": 283, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 319, "end": 329, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 381, "end": 390, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n A finding was also recorded by that Court that the bus that was seized was found to be a \"66 seater\", whereas the bus bearing registration no.PUV-9440 was a \"61 seater\". \n\n 9 of 16 22.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The petitioner has been rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the study details of the petitioner as her local status is the State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 72, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 143, "end": 166, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) made recommendations on \u2018Guidelines on Spectrum Sharing\u2019 on July 21, 2014, which was considered and approved by the Telecom Commission (TC) in its meeting held on 11.06.1025 and subsequently approved by the Central Government.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 65, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 126, "end": 139, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 182, "end": 205, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 229, "end": 239, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 273, "end": 291, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "OFFICE OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER, UTTAR PRADESH, ALLAHABAD No. 7244/9-Alcohol/131/Rosa/Fire Incident Allahabad Dated \u2013 11.07.2006 ORDER M/s McDowell & Company Ltd., Rosa, District Shahjhanpur is a PD-2 Licensed distillery.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 44, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 46, "end": 55, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 98, "end": 107, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 116, "end": 126, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 137, "end": 160, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 162, "end": 166, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 177, "end": 188, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Flipkart itself held more than 53 % of the market shares in the relevant market in the first quarter of 2019 and Amazon held 36% of the market shares in the relevant market in the first quarter of 2019.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 8, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 113, "end": 119, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The assessee in this case had been procuring raw-materials from different manufacturers and out of such materials, they had been producing car mattings and other mattings as well, such as bath mats, telephone mats, floor foot mats etc. with the aid of power operated machines.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The minutes of the meeting read thus:\n \u201cItem No.18/2020 Regarding proposed change of land use of Plot Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8.F.20(12)2019/MP a) The proposal was presented by Joint Secretary (L&E), MoHUA, In-charge of Central Vista Development/Redevelopment Project, who was present as Special Invitee.", "entities": [ { "start": 199, "end": 204, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Respondent-Balbir Singh filed a suit bearing No. 369/1986 against one Banwari Lal and Swaraj for declaration and Page 25 C/CA/305/2019 JUDGMENT permanent injunction.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 23, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 45, "end": 57, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 70, "end": 81, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 86, "end": 92, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 121, "end": 143, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The fact regarding demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was also told by her husband to her.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He deposed that on 24th March, 2007 Head Constable on Station Diary duty informed him on phone that at Nagapur Shivar dacoits had come and killed a woman.", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 35, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 103, "end": 110, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "However, the complaint of facts should disclose absence of reasonable excuse to the limited extent the Official Liquidator, by exercising due diligence, can ascertain such facts.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In Soni Vallabhdas Liladhar and another v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Jamnagar, AIR 1965 SC 481, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Customs Officers are not police officers and the statements made to them were not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 104, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 108, "end": 126, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 134, "end": 147, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 263, "end": 273, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 281, "end": 300, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The documents sent with show cause notice were never required to be sent as per above mentioned Act and Rules.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "| further say and submit that what were actually the arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicants in Special Civil Application No. 8894 of 2013 have been deviously portrayed as the observations of this Court only with a view to create a false merit in the captioned application.", "entities": [ { "start": 109, "end": 151, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "She has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the executive instructions issued by the Government of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 61, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 120, "end": 139, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The case of the petitioners is that Parliament has broken the law of the Constitution by enacting Section 433A.\" \n\n", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 46, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 73, "end": 85, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 98, "end": 111, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "At about 11:30 p.m., Deepak Kapoor called PW-19/Vishal Verma and inquired about the whereabouts of Shivam.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 41, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 55, "end": 67, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 113, "end": 119, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "As is well known the Supreme Court in case of GKN (83 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), had introduced a requirement of the Assessing Officer providing reasons recorded for issuing notice for reopening of assessment upon being demanded by the assessee and to consider and dispose of his objections to the notice for reopening, if so raised.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 34, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 46, "end": 147, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Leave to place on record the communication dated 1st April, 2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines addressed to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation as well as the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court has stayed the communication dated 1st April, 2019.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 64, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 72, "end": 91, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 93, "end": 110, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 138, "end": 169, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 206, "end": 216, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 231, "end": 250, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 310, "end": 325, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "(In Reference, under Article 143, of the Constitution of India26).", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 32, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 41, "end": 64, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Obviously, all the legal action were started in the year 1980 by the present plaintiffs based upon a receipt-Ex.P-69 dated 26.07.1972 under which an amount of Rs.800/- is said to have been paid to Shankar Shinde.", "entities": [ { "start": 123, "end": 133, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 197, "end": 211, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Given under my hand and seal of the court this day of 2022.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "As noted above in paras 6.7 & 6.8 (supra), the appellant vide its application bearing I.A. No. 5/2014 in its Civil Appeal No. 2878 of 2014 sought similar directions to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.90 lacs with 12% interest.", "entities": [ { "start": 86, "end": 101, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 109, "end": 138, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "In our opinion, the pro- vision in Section 2(1)(e) has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recog- nition to party autonomy.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 50, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 105, "end": 115, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "According to the petitioner\u00adfirm, the firms like M/s Price Water House Cooper, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, etc. who are having global presence in various countries were transferring foreign currencies into their firms/member firms registered in India.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 77, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 79, "end": 103, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 243, "end": 248, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Under the said notifications, the BDA proposed to acquire 3839 acres & 12 guntas of land situate in 16 villages namely Dasarahalli, Byrathikhane, Chellakere, Geddalahalli, K.Narayanapura, Rachenahalli, thanisandra, Amaruthahalli, Jakkur, Kempapura, Sampigehalli, Srirampura, Venkateshapura, Hennur, Hebbala and Nagavara, for the formation of Arkavathi Layout.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 37, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 119, "end": 130, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 132, "end": 144, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 146, "end": 156, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 158, "end": 170, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 172, "end": 186, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 188, "end": 200, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 202, "end": 213, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 215, "end": 228, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 230, "end": 236, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 238, "end": 247, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 249, "end": 261, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 263, "end": 273, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 275, "end": 289, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 291, "end": 297, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 299, "end": 306, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 311, "end": 319, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The Special Leave Petition, being SLP No.20691/1994, filed against that judgment was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.09.1995.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 51, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 107, "end": 117, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 138, "end": 148, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It was further undertaken that the interest of Rs.3.3 Crores from 01.08.2016 would be paid at the contractual rate till the date of payment and 8% interest on Rs.63,32,500/- would also be deposited by 23.08.2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 76, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 201, "end": 211, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The aforesaid judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare Society (supra) has also been upheld by a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2019(1) PLJR 628 (SC). \n\n 7.", "entities": [ { "start": 193, "end": 203, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 217, "end": 238, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "This application filed by the defendant no. 3, is for dismissal of the suit and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the suit is barred by law.", "entities": [ { "start": 110, "end": 127, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 135, "end": 170, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Sub\u00adsection (8) of Section 100 Cr.P.C clearly spells out that if a public witness refuses or neglects to attend a search without reasonable cause in spite of an order in writing, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 187 IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 30, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 31, "end": 37, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 233, "end": 244, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 245, "end": 248, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In the case of O. Konavalov vs. Commander, Coast Guard Region and Ors.: (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus:\n \"POWER TO CONFISCATE 30.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 69, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 85, "end": 98, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In RFA 10&17/20 such circumstances, I fail to understand how the appellants can assert a contention of non- maintainability against the present suit, under the provisions of Order 23 Rule1(4) of the CPC; and am, consequently, without doubt that these contentions are without merit.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 15, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 174, "end": 191, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 199, "end": 202, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Hence, no time extension could ever be made under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issued thereunder. \n\n68.", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 62, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 70, "end": 82, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In such an event, the logical conclusion cannot be drawn that the mother of the defendant would possibly have been ordinarily residing with her mother who had a separate residential premises elsewhere and further that the deceased tenant Sumitra Devi Poddar died not in the suit premise but at Khagadia, Bihar, as would be borne out from Exhibit 1.", "entities": [ { "start": 238, "end": 257, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 294, "end": 302, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 304, "end": 309, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n This Court, on an examination of all the facts, which are highlighted by the counsels, notices that OP filed in 1980 against Satyanarayana Reddy with a wrong surname and one Ramachandra Rao is allowed to be decreed in 1989 on the very same day that a written statement is filed admitting the suit claim.", "entities": [ { "start": 128, "end": 147, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 177, "end": 192, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The challenge to these Regulations was rejected by the Supreme Court in Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad31. \n\n243.", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 68, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 72, "end": 106, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The next judgment to be noted is Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) Through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 566, Justice R.V. Raveendran speaking for the Court noted the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 and Rule 3A and recorded his conclusions in paragraph 17 in following words:\u00ad \u201c17.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 134, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 144, "end": 159, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 207, "end": 237, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "It was for the SPS_3of1998.odt plaintiff to establish the same by leading evidence.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The petitioners in W.P. No.25434 of 2017 are the parents of Miss. Ayesha Meera, a student of B. Pharmacy, who was, during the relevant period, staying in Sree Durga Ladies Hostel, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 40, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 66, "end": 78, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 180, "end": 193, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 195, "end": 205, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "What the decision in the case of Manoj Narula v Union of India says, speaking through a fve judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is eloquent enough.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 62, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 119, "end": 132, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Probably, after marking the entire resolution book, it might have been returned to the trust on production of certified copies of relevant pages containing resolutions of the trust.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "As per Section 148 of the Act before making any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 the Assessing Officer has to serve a notice on the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of his income.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 18, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 101, "end": 112, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents.\" \n\n (iv) In State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., reported in (2004) 11 SCC 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the doctrine of precedents as thus:\n \"334.", "entities": [ { "start": 130, "end": 207, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 221, "end": 234, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "He argued that Jaipur Metals (supra) makes it clear that even independent proceedings under the Code can only continue when the stage is before a winding up order is passed, which was the case on the facts before the Court.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 28, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner., Karnataka Housing Board (supra) opined that in appropriate cases denial of full backwages would amount to permitting the employer to take advantage of his own wrongs.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 56, "end": 79, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Burugula Ravi, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 51, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 188, "end": 198, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 213, "end": 232, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 271, "end": 281, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 289, "end": 307, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 336, "end": 359, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 363, "end": 373, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "For such person the signature of the defendant was in the nature of a photograph CS No.3462/2016 PAGE NO. 28/54 M.L. GARG & ANR. v. N.D. GROVER THROUGH LRS which was to be copied and not something having any meaning.", "entities": [ { "start": 81, "end": 155, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Article 243T of the Constitution of India included in Part IXA, provides for reservation of seats.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 12, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 20, "end": 41, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 54, "end": 62, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n The landlord in the eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act had placed reliance upon US passport issued to him in the year 2006.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 65, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 73, "end": 81, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Appellants Raj Kumar @ Raja and Pankaj have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 27, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 32, "end": 38, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 97, "end": 107, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 115, "end": 123, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 129 has held", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 17, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 33, "end": 95, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In Dana Yadav @ Dahu (Supra) relied upon by the State, the Supreme Court carved out certain exceptions to the ordinary rule that identification of an accused for the first time in court is a weak type of evidence.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 20, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 59, "end": 72, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "PW-3, Rajinder Kumar Chopra was travelling in the Indigo at the time of the accident and the FIR was registered on his statement.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 27, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Based on the CAT order, the applicant made a representation dated 05.10.2018 requesting to cancel the order dated 31.05.2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 76, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 114, "end": 124, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Chapter VIII of the Act deals with the procedure and powers of theses Special Courts and the procedure for recording evidence of the child victim.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 12, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The appellant herein is accused No. 5 in Crime No. 80 of 2014 of MIDC Latur Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 61, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 65, "end": 110, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 788 in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad has referred the decision of Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore reported in AIR 2011 SC 2566 and has held that it is not like IPC cases wherein the sentence of imprisonment is called.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 52, "end": 74, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 90, "end": 119, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 149, "end": 216, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 250, "end": 253, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is pertinent to note that the death in this case had Crl.Appeal No.1357 of 2019 & Crl.Appeal (V) No.33 of 2019 occurred on 13.01.2017.", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 82, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 85, "end": 113, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 126, "end": 136, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Thereafter, the police received the information and registered the Marg No. 0/2018 on 29.04.2018 at Police Sation, Goutam Nagar, Bhopal.", "entities": [ { "start": 86, "end": 96, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 100, "end": 127, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 129, "end": 135, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Patna High Court CWJC No.2502 of 1988 dt.02-09-2019 Challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 16, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 17, "end": 37, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 38, "end": 51, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 81, "end": 94, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "So far as offence under Section 21 of the Act 1957 is concerned , it is for the authorized person to file a complaint after investigation before the magistrate concerned,upon which cognizance can be taken by the magistrate concerned.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 34, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The trial Court was therefore in error in concluding that continuing with the suit proceedings for passing procedural orders would not be violative of the moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Code of 2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 185, "end": 195, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Clearly in two judgments (Aghore Nath Dey and Suraj Prakash Gupta) the promotions were made in disregard of the rules; even in excess of their quota, and against direct recruit quota.", "entities": [ { "start": 26, "end": 41, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 46, "end": 65, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n vii) This Court vide order dated 19.12.2016 in W.P. No.27105 of 2016 while considering the submission of life-convict that he has completed 18 years of actual sentence including remand period and 24 years of a total sentence including remission is entitled and eligible KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch for premature release and since he has completed 19 years including remission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 17.02.2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 46, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 50, "end": 71, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 278, "end": 300, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 419, "end": 429, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Firstly, as to whether the sale consideration was not paid of which the burden of proof rested upon the plaintiff and secondly, whether the appellants-defendants were entitled to the return of the sale consideration which according to them was Rs. 10,000/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "No case for interference is made out by the petitioner in the matter of allocation.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "On account of a Chapter on Fundamental Rights in Part III of our Constitution right from 1950, Indian Courts did not suffer from the disability similar to the one experienced by English Courts for declaring as unconstitutional legislation on the principle of proportionality or reading them in a manner consistent with the charter of rights.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 57, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 65, "end": 77, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "They bear within them a shining beauty and a heavenly light.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He deposed that at about 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. a motorcyclist moving towards Jaipur and at that time, a pick-up van came from behind and hit the motorcyclist.", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 79, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\nLearned trial court had found that the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 & 148 IPC is proved to the hilt , hence they were convicted for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and three years rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and in case of default, further simple imprisonment of six months.", "entities": [ { "start": 65, "end": 86, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 87, "end": 90, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "That, in regard to paragraph-13 and 14 of the Advocates Commission report, it is submitted that the demand to create the post of Safai Karmachari and Ward Boys has been sent to the State Government.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Accordingly Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, Advocate, has been nominated by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee as amicus to contest the appeal on behalf of the respondent-accused.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 31, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 69, "end": 107, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The Division Bench dismissed those writ appeals, subject to the observations as made above regarding opening of new branches/offices.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Taking note of the above suggestion, we asked Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, as to what steps were taken by the State for reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners.", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 63, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 89, "end": 109, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The Magistrate is not expected to take the position of a superior postman in the sense, receive the confessional statements and forward the same to the TADA Court by putting them in another envelope.", "entities": [ { "start": 152, "end": 162, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 232 of 2009 was filed by the wife of the deceased, two minor children and his parents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no. 6, Sultanpur.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 49, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 135, "end": 215, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The prayer was granted as prayed for.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "We should look into the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Union of India vs. K. A. Najeeb [Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021 decided on 1 st February 2021].", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 65, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 85, "end": 147, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 159, "end": 177, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The witness admitted that to reach Anantapur from Chennampalli cross, they have to pass through Bukkarayasamudram where there was a Police Station as well as a Government Hospital.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 44, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 50, "end": 62, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 96, "end": 113, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Consequently, therefore, it would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to 24-9-1984, the date on which Act 68 of 1984 came into force.", "entities": [ { "start": 79, "end": 88, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 108, "end": 122, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Undisputedly, the concession of suspension of sentence was granted to the petitioner(s) subject to the valid pre-condition for deposit of 25% amount of compensation in terms of Section 148 of the Amendment Act and in the eventuality of breach of the same", "entities": [ { "start": 177, "end": 188, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 196, "end": 209, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "He also observed that the decision whether or not the continued treatment and care of a PVS patient confers any benefit on him is essentially one for the practitioners in charge.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, if he is required in any other case, then it is entirely a different matter.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "If he had participated in the alleged marriage under duress, then he could have filed complaint at Kapada where he having regular place of resident.", "entities": [ { "start": 99, "end": 105, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "This was in addition to the reservation of 15% and 3% for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe respectivelyd and result of the order was 68% of the seats available for admission to engineering and medical colleges came to be reserved, leaving only 32% seats available to the merit pool.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The road which leads from village Gadhva to Mau-Gurdari, the same crosses the river, from there the place where they had gone for nature's call, must have been about .750 meter towards east where they had sat for defecating; the same place must have been four to five paces away from Bardaha river.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 40, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 44, "end": 55, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "In the instant case, in our opinion, Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum had no title to Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village as on 01.01.1955 when she allegedly executed the wakfnama endowing this land as Wakf property.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 60, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 102, "end": 119, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 126, "end": 136, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "[Ref. Murarilal v. State of M.P.; 1980 AIR (SC) 531, Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi); 2003 AIR (SC) 282 and Ravichandran v. State by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Madras; 2010 AIR (SC) 1922].", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 51, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 53, "end": 101, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 106, "end": 187, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The discretion under Section 427 of the Code can also be exercised at the stage when the court records the subsequent conviction.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 32, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "To summarise the conclusions:\n (i) The challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43 (5) of the Act is rejected.", "entities": [ { "start": 98, "end": 112, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Dilution on the Constitutional Principles would result in disaster consequences.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "{See: Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P.Public Service sh Commission and others-(2003) 11 SCC-584, e Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) ad Ltd. and others-(2003) 2 SCC-111, Indian Pr Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia and another-(2015)10 SCC-161, Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. a Bank of India and others-(2016) 3 SCC-762}.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 91, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 95, "end": 179, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 181, "end": 267, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 269, "end": 334, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "That this transaction has been finalised with efforts of M/s. Nagar Properties who shall be entitled to get the commission @1% from each party on the total amount of this transaction and the default party will pay the commission @_% to the said dealer.", "entities": [ { "start": 62, "end": 78, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "In South Africa, prior to 1994, the SAPS followed an 8- hour shift pattern, consisting of three shifts (0600-1400 hours, 1400-2200 hours, 2200-0600 hours) in various cycles.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 15, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 36, "end": 40, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "According to PW 1 Mani Ram he was working at the 'Rabat' along with his brother Pati Ram deceased, on 14-10-1979 at about 12 noon when he heard the shouts of Maharaj Singh and other children.", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 26, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 80, "end": 88, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 102, "end": 112, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 158, "end": 171, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Similarly, for daily wagers in Forest and Environment Department, GR dated 15.09.2014 was issued, which was in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court for giving benefits to the daily wagers of Forest and Environment Department wherein cut off date prescribed was 29.10.2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 64, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 75, "end": 85, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 149, "end": 162, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 206, "end": 239, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 276, "end": 286, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging the vires of Section 5(3)\n\n(iii)(a) and Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cAct, 1949\u201d) and other statutory provisions including Rules framed thereunder and the notifications.", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 99, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 104, "end": 115, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 123, "end": 173, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The questionable observations made in Ismail Faruqui's case have to be treated as only observations and not for the purpose of deciding suits and these appeals, they are not to be treated as governing factor or relevant.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 52, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "This property is the 9 acre of land in the Village Bhampur, Rania Road, Sirsa.", "entities": [ { "start": 57, "end": 64, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 78, "end": 83, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioners allege that they were not aware about the exparte impugned award dated 10.09.2018 and they came to know about the passing of this award only after receiving notice of the execution petition (Ex.No.60/2019) for execution of the award from this court.", "entities": [ { "start": 87, "end": 97, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It was argued that the relationship between the unit-holders on the one hand and AMC and the Trustees on the other hand is purely a contractual relationship which is regulated by the Mutual Funds Regulations and, therefore, a writ cannot be issued in contractual matters.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is apparent from the above that the Supreme Court has merely interpreted the provisions of Section 435 of the Cr.PC as enacted; it has not set down any law, which differs from that enacted by the Parliament.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 52, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 94, "end": 105, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 113, "end": 118, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 199, "end": 209, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The extent of care and vigilance to be taken while dealing with public property is made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHENCHU RAMI REDDY AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [(1986) 3 SCC 391], a decision cited by Sri Y.K.N.Sharma.", "entities": [ { "start": 109, "end": 122, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 138, "end": 230, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 256, "end": 268, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "If the arguments of the respondents have to be accepted then it would amount to deleting the words \"or\" and \"such, from Section 55 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.", "entities": [ { "start": 120, "end": 130, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 138, "end": 189, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 194, "end": 221, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "He has withstood the test of cross- examination.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain broad guidelines to be borne in mind while scrutinizing the evidence of eyewitnesses and subsequently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ishaque and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 581.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 22, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 159, "end": 169, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 185, "end": 275, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n15) Further, it is admitted fact that in view of the allegations received against the accused through source of information, the SP Crl.A. No.1011/2017 J of the CBI Dr. A. Subramaneshwar Rao suo-moto registered the FIR before the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.", "entities": [ { "start": 163, "end": 166, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 171, "end": 192, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 232, "end": 315, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The ExD9 is the extract of Transfer of Rights Register [Mutation Register] in respect of MR 46/1998-99 dated 06/12/1998 discloses that Sri P. Venkataraju sonof Thayappa and his wife Pullamma and children Arunkumar, Manjunath, Naveen Kumar, minor Jyothi have sold 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.61/1 of Chellaghatta village, Varthur O.S.No.16217/2000 Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 for Rs.1,60,000/-.", "entities": [ { "start": 109, "end": 119, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 139, "end": 153, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 160, "end": 168, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 182, "end": 190, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 204, "end": 213, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 215, "end": 224, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 226, "end": 238, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 246, "end": 252, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 298, "end": 318, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 320, "end": 327, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 353, "end": 374, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "His postmortem examination was done and, Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2021 dt. 07-04-2022 thereafter, his body was buried in the village-Bairiya.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 57, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 83, "end": 93, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 141, "end": 148, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Although the date on which the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 was filed by the defendant is not on record, learned Advocate for the defendant has submitted in the course of his submissions that, the same was filed subsequent to the institution of the instant suit.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 59, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "It cannot possibly include what the court thinks is unjust on the facts of a case for which it then seeks to substitute its view for the arbitrator's view and does what it considers to be \"justice\".", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Firstly, he submitted that the title of goods in dispute was transferred by the assessee to the purchaser outside India.", "entities": [ { "start": 114, "end": 119, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Regarding the third prayer that the Officers of the DRI may be asked not to take any coercive action against the petitioners, it may be noted that this Court by order dated 04.02.2019 directed the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 55, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 173, "end": 183, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "At the same time, the accused will also get the opportunity of putting forward their case before the Trial Court by leading appropriate oral as well as documentary evidence to establish that what has been stated in the Article in question is true, based on the public record.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The observation of CIT(A) is misplaced with regard to deduction u/s.80P(2)(i)(a) is even otherwise given to the assessee even if it accepts deposits from non members.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 80, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The proviso to Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act stipulates that the reasons for communication or the likely action of the secured creditor shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act or the Court of District Judge under Section 17A of the SARFAESI Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 29, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 37, "end": 49, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 222, "end": 225, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 232, "end": 242, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 250, "end": 262, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 300, "end": 311, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 319, "end": 331, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This according to Mr. Sai Deepak brings out the distinction between the CFA and BFA programs.", "entities": [ { "start": 22, "end": 32, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Fraud on the Court can be found by the Court by examining the record of the case before the Court 206.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "All the universities are duly empowered to run all courses of education and award all degrees to its pass out students after imparting education in such courses as per Section 22 of the UGC Act there being no requirement to take approval from the State Legislature or from any other authority.", "entities": [ { "start": 168, "end": 178, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 186, "end": 193, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "5. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 is taken as a lead case.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 34, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Not only that, Sub Section 2(i) provides that any plot held by any person as lessee from the Improvement Trust under a registered deed of lease for residential purpose shall be deemed to have been vested in him as perpetual lease from generation to generation on payment of fee to the authority at the rate of one rupee per square meter.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 31, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The brief the averments of the complaint are as under;\n It is averred in the complaint that, land bearing survey No.23/3, measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situated at Doddabidarakallu village, Yeshavanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is belongs to one Smt.Jayalakshmi.", "entities": [ { "start": 162, "end": 186, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 188, "end": 208, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 210, "end": 231, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 255, "end": 266, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Inter alia the defendant i.e. appellant herein denied that the plaintiff no.1 i.e. RSA No. 23/2019 respondent no.1 herein was entitled to any damages whatsoever and denied that there was any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein in as much as she reiterated that the plaintiff i.e. the respondents had no right, title or interest in the suit property.", "entities": [ { "start": 83, "end": 98, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "(the entire discussion on the issue CS No.3462/2016 PAGE NO. 50/54 M.L. GARG & ANR. v. N.D. GROVER THROUGH LRS no. 1 can be referred to).", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 116, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "It was argued that the Collector had awarded the same compensation to the respondents as had been awarded by the Reference Court and, therefore, no further enhancement was possible.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The observation in Md.Mohar Ali (supra) stating that an agreement of sale is an unilateral contract is not correct.", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 31, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Another three Judges bench of the Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 following Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) and taking into consideration definition of \"interest\" in Section 2(28A) of the Act had recorded that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 44, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 48, "end": 111, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 126, "end": 140, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 214, "end": 228, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 273, "end": 283, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Section 151 reads:\n \"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.\" \n\n21.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 11, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Those lands had been acquired long back during the time of his predecessor, Sri Kothegala Shivabasappa Swamy and that he received the compensation as the head of Devanur Mutt.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 108, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "By means of Government order dated 19/02/1990 & 22/03/1990 it was further clarified that Non-Practicing Allowance shall form part of basic salary as described in financial handbook vol II to IV in rule 9(21)(1).", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 45, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 48, "end": 58, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 162, "end": 210, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "It is trite that under the Evidence Act 1872 facts have to be proved by primary evidence and secondary evidence is only an exception to the rule.", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 44, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Delhi High Court in the case of Printpak Machinery v. Jay Kay Paper Congeners reported in AIR, 1979 Delhi 271 has also held that the non- obstinate clause in Section 129 of the Code left untouched the original side rules of High Court whenever framed and the said rules would prevail over the Code.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 20, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 36, "end": 113, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 162, "end": 173, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Much before the enactment of RTI Act, which came on the statute book in the year 2005, this Court repeatedly emphasised the people's right to information to be a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 36, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 171, "end": 187, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 195, "end": 207, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This was a comprehensive report which provided more than adequate justification for the decision of the ITSC to conclude that there had not been a full and true disclosure by the Petitioners of all relevant facts.", "entities": [ { "start": 104, "end": 108, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n vi) In Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka5, the Apex Court held that no convict can claim remission as a matter of right.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 51, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 57, "end": 67, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "If one carefully reads the evidence of PW-7, he clearly states that A-4 was part of the armed mob which attacked the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The order of dismissal was assailed before the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Meera Sahni (supra). \n\n50.", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 60, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 99, "end": 110, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "No explanation is forthcoming from these respondents why this time limit was not adhered to while registering the Wakf created MSR,J & TVK,J ::60:: wp_20707_2018&batch under the Wakfnama 01.01.1955 by Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum on 13.12.2013, eighteen years after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force.", "entities": [ { "start": 187, "end": 197, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 206, "end": 224, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 228, "end": 238, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 265, "end": 279, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Further HPCL shall be at liberty to take any appropriate action as deemed fit in such an eventuality.", "entities": [ { "start": 8, "end": 12, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "On this basis in R. v. Barnet London Borough Council, ex p Johnson [(1989) 88 LGR 73] the condition imposed by a local authority prohibiting participation by those affiliated with political parties at events to be held in the authority's parks was struck down.\" \n\n \"83.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 85, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "After careful consideration of the case on the whole, the Ministry has come to the conclusion that Media One TV channel had violated Rule 6(1)(c) & (e) of the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder by telecasting said news regarding the North East Delhi violence.\"", "entities": [ { "start": 99, "end": 119, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 133, "end": 151, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 195, "end": 243, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 315, "end": 331, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "By a letter dated February 5, 2013, petitioner put on record such facts.", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 34, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The amount of Rs.1,03,000/\u00ad, which was received by Janakiammal from the Insurance Corporation after the death of her husband was given to defendant No.1, which was utilised for business purposes.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 62, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court later in Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain , has struck down cl.(4) of Article 329 on the ground that it violates the Rule of Law and free elections which according to the Court constitutes the basic feature of the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 17, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 27, "end": 54, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 73, "end": 94, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 227, "end": 239, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "That decision was assailed by the State Government by way of LPA No. 233/2006 before the Division Bench of the High Court, which came to be allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.4.2011.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 77, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 187, "end": 196, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The answer to the said question lies in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muthuramalingam and Ors vs. State represented by Inspector Of Police 54 wherein it is held that it is perfectly legal for a person to be sentenced to more than one life term.", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 62, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 79, "end": 89, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 105, "end": 173, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "After hearing the parties, all the writ petitions were dismissed, by a common order, dated 12.04.2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 91, "end": 101, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "He admits that panchas and witness Sharad Kacharu Pawar are co- villagers.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 55, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "So his evidence is inconsistent with prosecution case because it has come out in evidence that Gopalakrishnan was taken first to the District hospital.", "entities": [ { "start": 95, "end": 109, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The AO does not agree to the treatment of the income by the assessee under the head income from house property and accordingly taken only the rentals under the head house property whereas hire charges from furniture and fixtures and other articles were treated as income from other sources.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "ANNEXURE - I: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3273/2016/HOME DATED 1.11.2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 59, "end": 68, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others8, the question examined was in relation to minimum sentence provided for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19619, providing for minimum sentence of six months.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 65, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 155, "end": 164, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 172, "end": 200, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "PW-23 Varun Gumber also supported the case of prosecution though not entirely but he has deposed that dead body was found in front of his dhaba.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 18, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Though Learned senior counsel Sri Mukul Rohatgi relied on the judgment of this Court dated 21 st August,2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019, but we are of the view that the said judgment would not render any assistance to support his case.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 47, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 91, "end": 108, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 112, "end": 143, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "(Writ Tax Petition No.524/2021), dated 30.09.2021, reported in 2021(10) TMI 517, the learned Single Judge had quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 30, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 39, "end": 49, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 63, "end": 79, "label": "RESPONDENT" }, { "start": 143, "end": 154, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Further, the bridge was inaugurated by the Minister concerned, on 15.08.2016, and the bridge is being used by the commuters and, therefore, a request was made for grant of permission for shifting of the 5th respondent A4 shop to the afore-stated building bearing D.No.4/498-14 & 4/498-15 as the said building was not affected in the acquisition proceedings.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 76, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Capital punishment is based on the principle of denunciation of wrong doing.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "(Exh.84)\n (x) Reply of the Public Information Officer - cum - Deputy Collector, Dholka dated 19.01.2018 to the petitioner.", "entities": [ { "start": 81, "end": 87, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 94, "end": 104, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Basing on the above said complaint, the police of Mydukur U/G PS registered a case in Cr.No.428 of 2015 under Sections 323, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 64, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 86, "end": 103, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 110, "end": 144, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 145, "end": 148, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n It was not just the speech of any member in Parliament.", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 57, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, under the facts and circumstance of the case and the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and up held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.", "entities": [ { "start": 232, "end": 242, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "As per the original return of income filed on 31.07.2016, only Sub-head C of Schedule FA has been filled up.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 56, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The constitutional court also step in to ensure that the policy makers have devised the effective use of its enabling powers which the Constitution has conferred on them.", "entities": [ { "start": 135, "end": 147, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In Ankush Maruti Shinde (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-\n \"On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/ prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 23, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 41, "end": 51, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "On the other hand, the representation that gives rise to the legitimate expectation may augment the applicant's procedural rights, as exemplified by the Liverpool Taxi case.", "entities": [ { "start": 153, "end": 167, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The Tribunal thus ought to have rejected the said claim application on the ground of non joinder of necessary party.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The bank accepted the offer of the petitioner and directed him to deposit 25% of the bid amount after adjusting the earnest money deposit of Rs.98,000/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.,\n(1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that a constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is \"disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable\", yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being \"unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted\". ", "entities": [ { "start": 81, "end": 143, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Mr. Masood Shareef, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7717 of 2019, Mohd. Abdul Wahid Vs. Smt. Nilofer in respect of the first question, has invited our attention to paras 14 to 18 of the referral order, and submits that a party in all cases, has to be equated with a witness.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 18, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 58, "end": 87, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 89, "end": 123, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "But this decision does not come in the way of the Court issuing the mandamus to consider whether the time for bringing Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 into force had arrived or not.", "entities": [ { "start": 119, "end": 129, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 137, "end": 156, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In Mi Hla So v. Nga Than (1912) 13 Cri. L.J. 53 (Burma), the accused Nga Than was in love with Mi Hla So.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 55, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 69, "end": 77, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 95, "end": 104, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Counsel submits that the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 with respect to the incident is contradictory, inasmuch, as, PW-1 Dharmender Sharma deposed that on 19.12.1997, he along with his father Sh. Keshav Ram Sharma were present at their house at about 07:30 PM.", "entities": [ { "start": 122, "end": 139, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 156, "end": 166, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 197, "end": 214, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The State Government is entitled to take such action as it considers appropriate in exercise of powers under any law for the time being in force.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He speaks with regard to he joined the very same branch and got marked the documents Exs.P13 to P45 in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution; but he admits that he joined the Bank in September 1994 and also got marked the documents pertaining to Sri Venkataswamy and execution of Ex.P23.", "entities": [ { "start": 262, "end": 274, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Under Sub-clause (b) of Rule 27 (1) of Order XLI CPC when the appellate court finds that for passing of a judgment, just and R.F.A.No.447 of 2006 proper, the incorporation of the document proposed to be received and marked in additional evidence is very much relevant and inevitable, it is empowered to receive and mark it in evidence.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 48, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 49, "end": 52, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 125, "end": 145, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "P.W.8 Anandakumar S/o Kundappa who is other I.O. and then P.I. of Halsurgate PS has testified with regard to filing of charge sheet in view of completion of investigation.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 17, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 22, "end": 30, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 66, "end": 79, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "A similar view had earlier been taken in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K.Gopalakrishna Shenoy and another3, wherein in the context of Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 it was held that the owner having a motor vehicle, in respect of which a certificate of registration is current, is bound to pay the tax even if the vehicle is incapable of being put in use.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 111, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 139, "end": 179, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "True it is, some investigation has been carried out by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police after the case being transferred from Noida as there was total inaction by the Noida police.", "entities": [ { "start": 75, "end": 87, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 126, "end": 131, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 167, "end": 179, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "After returning from work, she used to sit idle till 11 p.m.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The objection was upheld by the Small Cause Court, the Judge being of opinion that though under Or.III, r. 1, a recognised agent can indeed appear, act and apply on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant by whom he has been authorised to do such things, \"the law does not give him the power to plead on behalf of his principal\".", "entities": [ { "start": 96, "end": 108, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The only issue which then falls for determination is whether the flat buyers in these circumstances are constrained by the stipulation contained in clause 14 of ABA providing compensation for delay at the rate of Rs 5 per square feet per month.", "entities": [ { "start": 148, "end": 157, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 161, "end": 164, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Baliram Sharma (P.W.5) states in his evidence that 16 years ago at the time of occurrence, there was hulla in the village that MCC Party members had arrived.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 14, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 127, "end": 136, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "We are not so much concerned with the other Chapters, namely, Chapters IV to IX of the 2010 Act, except Section 17 (in Chapter IV) which deals with foreign contribution through scheduled (e) if the holder of the certificate has not been engaged in any reasonable activity in its chosen field for the benefit of the society for two consecutive years or has become defunct.", "entities": [ { "start": 62, "end": 79, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 104, "end": 130, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "This apart, the Ex.P.39 certified copy of MR No.19/97-98 of Kembathahalli village, evidences that after the death of Chinnappa, the names of children of Chinnappa came to be mutated to the properties mentioned therein, including the acquired lands and it also evidences that wife of Chinnappa predeceased him.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 81, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 117, "end": 126, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 153, "end": 162, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 283, "end": 292, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "This principle has been laid down in the cases of Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1991 Supp.(1) SCC 57] and Dabur India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2005) 4 SCC 9].", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 156, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 161, "end": 241, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The municipality issued the work order on 07.10.2008 and the same day an agreement was entered into between the municipality and the private respondent; the municipality released 12% of the total cost, i.e., \u20b9 1,44,00,000/- as mobilization advance to Respondent No. 9 on 20.12. 2008. \n\n7.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 52, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 271, "end": 282, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The material on record before the High Court in the form of inspection report dated 20.04.2019 and further materials including the Divisional Commissioner\u2019s affidavit, showed irregularities of a severe nature.", "entities": [ { "start": 84, "end": 94, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "DESCRIPTION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Residential building bearing No.14, 3rd Cross, Assessment No.48, Khatha No.1870, Priyadarshini Layout, Malagalu Village, Moodala Palya, Bangalore 560 072 total admeasuring 1200 Sq.ft together with all rights, appurtenances whatsoever whether underneath or above the surface of the property and bounded on the East by: Property of Meena Sudhakar West by: Private property + high tension line North by: 22'' road South by: Property of Munikrishna", "entities": [ { "start": 137, "end": 153, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 155, "end": 168, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 170, "end": 179, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 364, "end": 378, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 467, "end": 478, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Since we have heard storming arguments on the point of the ceiling imposed by the Apex Court in matters of reservation, and the judgment in Archana Reddy by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is heavily relied upon, we should be conscious of even one percent of reservation being conferred by the State without quantifiable data.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 92, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 140, "end": 153, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 161, "end": 186, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, contributions, if any, made by any lessee prior to the effective date determined by the Supreme Court cannot be refunded, instead, the same could be adjusted towards the subsequent payments.", "entities": [ { "start": 99, "end": 112, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "He then informed to SDPO that he was holding the identification parade on 23rd March, 2012.", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 90, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The 73rd Amendment came to the Constitution by way of amendment under Article 368 and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a basic feature of the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 18, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 31, "end": 43, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 70, "end": 81, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 145, "end": 157, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner, Dr. Y.Adilakshmi, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Hyderabad, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 32, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 89, "end": 98, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 165, "end": 175, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 207, "end": 221, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The appellants have relied upon site plan, Ex. D.16 prepared by R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.20) in the presence of D.R. Sharma (P.W. 19).", "entities": [ { "start": 64, "end": 77, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 106, "end": 117, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Again, in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, the following observations were made by this Court: (SCC p. 501, para 7) \"7. ...", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 40, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "We may have again to look into provisions of Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. Sub-section (5) of Sections 437 of Cr.P.C uses expression \u2018if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody\u2019.", "entities": [ { "start": 45, "end": 73, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 77, "end": 84, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 85, "end": 116, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 120, "end": 126, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "While considering various decisions of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana vs. Kailashwati, AIR 1980 P&H 117, this Court held that the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium.", "entities": [ { "start": 89, "end": 118, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 131, "end": 181, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 233, "end": 243, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Only after concluding that none of the other castes / communities, demanding internal reservation within the 20 per cent reservation granted to MBCs and DNCs, satisfied the test of viability or feasibility for internal reservation, the Janarthanam Commission had recommended 10.5 per cent internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas.", "entities": [ { "start": 236, "end": 258, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Both of them were executed at residential rate of Rs.2050/- per sq. meter.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "An opportunity of personal hearing was given as well to the petitioners, fixing 12:30 p.m. on July 3, 2019 for such hearing.", "entities": [ { "start": 94, "end": 106, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (9) With regard to agricultural land owned in rural areas :\n 8.66% of Maratha families are landless, 62.74% of Maratha families own agricultural land not more than 2.5 acres, 19% own agricultural land more than 2.5 acres and less than 5 acres, 6% of Maratha families own agricultural land in the range of 5 to 10 acres and just 2.7% of Maratha families have agricultural land more than 10 acres.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is further the case of the prosecution that at about 1:50 p.m, the accused was apprehended along with bag by Ct. Mamta with the help of SI Surender.", "entities": [ { "start": 116, "end": 121, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 142, "end": 150, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in the case of Baladin2 assume significance; otherwise, in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to be a member of Crl. Appeal Nos. 1709-1710 of 2019 (@ SLP [Crl.]Nos.2497-2498 of 2019) The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Page No 9 of 61 India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Satpal Singh and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 237 and in Paragraph Nos. 27 to 29 held as under:-", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 87, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Interest on the unpaid amount, penalty, and interest on penalty in relation to the past dues as on the date of the judgment of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court (arising due to the said judgment of the Supreme Court) will not be levied beyond the date of the said judgment, and the NPV will be protected using the discount rate.", "entities": [ { "start": 139, "end": 152, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 194, "end": 207, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "These provisions stipulate that a secured creditor who is seeking the intervention of the Magistrate under Section 14 is required to file an affidavit furnishing the information contemplated under various sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso and obligates the Magistrate to pass suitable orders regarding taking of the possession of the secured assets only after being satisfied with the contents of the affidavits.\" \n\n 27.", "entities": [ { "start": 107, "end": 117, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 27. Devaky v. State of Kerala (1986 KHC 1), is a case charged under S.55(g), the question arose Crl.M.C.2719 of 2020 is whether accused was entitled to get a second analysis of the sample.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 45, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 71, "end": 78, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 99, "end": 119, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The evidence of Romesh Chand PW 6 that the family had an amount of Rs 40,000 lying at", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 28, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (b) The suit is decreed in part granting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards past damages for use and occupation and future damages at Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of handing over possession.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that, the issue involved was disputed and in the light of ratios laid down by Karnataka High Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the act could not have been invoked and no adjustment U/s.143(1) of the act could have been made.", "entities": [ { "start": 154, "end": 174, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 196, "end": 209, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 229, "end": 250, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 310, "end": 318, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Again an instructive insight can be obtained from the observations of Justice Holmes of the American Supreme Court in the case of State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. [51 L Ed 1038 : 206 US 230 (1906) : 27 SCR 618] , which was a case involving air pollution in Georgia caused by the discharge of noxious gases from the defendant's plant in Tennesee.", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 84, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 92, "end": 114, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 265, "end": 272, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 344, "end": 352, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The High Court shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to both parties and shall dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.\"", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In addition the appellants shall, as offered by them, deposit with the executing court for payment to the respondent another amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He has also placed on record the State/Union Territory wide percentage of population of OBC in India in the year 2011-12 in the form of the NSSO Report no. 563 (employment and unemployment) and according to him, the percentage of OBC patil-sachin.", "entities": [ { "start": 95, "end": 100, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 140, "end": 144, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the lands, including Sy No. 61 of Kodigehalli from its owners on 27.03.1991.", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 89, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 109, "end": 119, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The legislature thought that an educational institution could be an industry.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The prosecution has also failed to produce either the log book of the official vehicle used by the raiding.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In Nasiruddin & Ors. vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1543, the Court held that it is well settled that when negative words are used, the Court would presume that intention of the legislature was that the provisions are mandatory in character.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 71, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, having office at Old Secretariate Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.\n4.", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 35, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 64, "end": 94, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 156, "end": 162, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "He stated that accused is friends with Dinesh Gupta.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 51, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "One Mohd. Aslam, who was also one of the petitioners in Constitution Bench Judgment in Ismail Faruqui\u2019s case filed a writ petition seeking certain reliefs with regard to 67.703 acres of land acquired under the Act, 1993.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 15, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 56, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 87, "end": 101, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "This conflict or inconsistency now stands resolved by virtue of the amendments introduced under the Finance Act, 2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 100, "end": 117, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Cabinet Secretary took stock of the situation, preparedness, rescue and relief operations and directed that immediate and continued assistance be provided to Kerala to meet this crisis.", "entities": [ { "start": 158, "end": 164, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "According to the appellants, the flat buyers had already paid for the super area in terms of clause 1.6 of ABA including common areas and facilities which would be deemed to include car parking under the KAO Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 93, "end": 103, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 107, "end": 110, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 204, "end": 211, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Mohd. Masiuddin Farooqui (P.W.5), the defendant and he met only once, i.e., on 02.10.1994.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 24, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 79, "end": 89, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "By reading these Provisions, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Board is a Body Corporate constituted under the Provisions of the Waqf Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 159, "end": 167, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these courts and tribunals [Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]].", "entities": [ { "start": 107, "end": 181, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In response to this, it was submitted that there cannot be any quarrel with the said contention, but the aforesaid judgment of the M.P. High Court is not at all relevant to the facts of the present case.", "entities": [ { "start": 131, "end": 146, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Both the courts have upheld the Will after recording a finding that execution of the Will has been proved on examining attesting witness Inder Singh as PW13, Sub-Registrar Baldev Singh, who registered the Will has been examined as PW5.", "entities": [ { "start": 140, "end": 151, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 175, "end": 187, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Further, learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of this High Court in the case of H. Narasimha Rao v. Venkataram R reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 583, referring to this Judgment he would contend that when the debt has become barred by limitation the accused was acquitted.", "entities": [ { "start": 84, "end": 146, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The observations of Lord Tenterden and Tindal, C.J. referred in the abovementioned passages in Craies on Statute Law also indicate that the principle that on repeal a statute is obliterated is subject to the exception that it exists in respect of transactions past and closed.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 34, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 39, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "This agreement dated 17.12.1973, according to the defendant, gives them a right over the plaintiffs.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 31, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Accused was working as gate keeper at Sector 23, Chandigarh.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 59, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "He has deposed that on 30.10.2017, on the directions of the IO, he collected sealed pullanda of 100 gms ganja vide RC No. 235/21/17, already Ex. PW\u00ad3/B from MHC(M) for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini.", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 33, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 115, "end": 131, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 191, "end": 202, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "It would be useful to quote the observation of the Apex Court in (2013) 2 SCC 772. \n\n \"32.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 61, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 65, "end": 81, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Three flats on the first floor of the building are being entire occupied jointly by Rajeev, Rahul and Ranjan Maheshwari, brothers.", "entities": [ { "start": 84, "end": 90, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 92, "end": 97, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 102, "end": 119, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "We are, therefore, of the opinion that even apart from Section 140 of the MV Act, a victim in an accident which occurred while using a motor vehicle, is entitled to get compensation from a Tribunal unless any one of the exceptions would apply.", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 66, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 74, "end": 80, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Immediately thereafter, the Statement dated 05-04-2018 and the Circular dated 06-04-2018, impugned in these writ petitions came to be issued by RBI.", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 54, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 78, "end": 88, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 144, "end": 147, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The execution court held that the 5th judgment debtor can continue as the Manager only till a new Manager is elected, as per the 1934 Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 134, "end": 146, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is mentioned in the first information report that on 23.2.2014 the offending truck gave dash to the 15 fa2564.16 motor cycle of deceased and Sadashiv Thorat (PW 2) from the back side of motor cycle.", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 65, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 144, "end": 159, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Therefore, Sunil put a blanket on that woman and took her to one Kotha of Ram Niwas and from there, Sombir sent Manvir to bring condom from outside.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 16, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 74, "end": 83, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 100, "end": 106, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 112, "end": 118, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The point to be stressed here is that under our Act, was the examiner under the Indian Patent Office not entitled to know as to what was the prosecution history of the plaintiffs qua the corresponding patents in US.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 100, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 212, "end": 214, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Furthermore, there was no provision for an appellate mechanism against action taken by the authorities under the unamended the Benami Act, 1988 while barring the jurisdiction of Civil Court.", "entities": [ { "start": 127, "end": 143, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "He received information that a blue coloured vehicle bearing no.WB-26C-3869 was coming from Guwahati to Howrah through NH34 carrying huge quantity of ganja and would pass Barasat in the early hours of 27.09.2006.", "entities": [ { "start": 92, "end": 100, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 104, "end": 110, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 171, "end": 178, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 201, "end": 211, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "After that, accused Laxmi @ Rukmani was arrested and her personal search was conducted and", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 35, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Under this category there were four statements that were recorded, i.e. the statement dated 23rd May 2006 recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DA), the statement dated 10th December 2008 recorded by the MM under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/E), the supplementary statement dated 4 th September 2009 (Ex.PW-1/DB), and the supplementary statement dated 11th April 2009 (Ex.PW-17/DB) both recorded by the CBI.", "entities": [ { "start": 92, "end": 105, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 122, "end": 125, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 132, "end": 143, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 144, "end": 149, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 184, "end": 202, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 228, "end": 239, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 240, "end": 245, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 293, "end": 312, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 365, "end": 380, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 416, "end": 419, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Briefly, the facts are that on 18.12.2001 at around 04:30 PM on Sitapur-Lucknow G.T. Road Near New Krishna Hall adjacent to Kamalpur Police Station, District Sitapur, the deceased Dukhi Ram was travelling in a Tempo of a Mahendra Economy Jeep No.UP-32-Z-9360.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 44, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 127, "end": 168, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 183, "end": 192, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "To this, Mr. Setalvad argued that if the building was equipped with machinery for the purpose of running a textile mill, whatever machinery was there for the purpose would be valued.", "entities": [ { "start": 13, "end": 21, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "He has further deposed that after receiving the result from FSL as Ex. PW\u00ad5/B, same was filed before the Court.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He supports Galligan in this respect and goes to the extent by saying that it is same as ensuring dignity of individuals, in respect of whom or against whom the decision is taken, in the following words:\n \"The instrumental value of procedures should not be underestimated; the accurate application of authoritative standards is, as Galligan clearly explains, an important aspect of treating someone with respect.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 20, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 332, "end": 340, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "However, when their accounts became a Non Performing Assets as on 30.05.2016, the bank initiated action under SARFAESI Act 2002 and issued a notice dated 17.12.2016 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.240,03,62,830.86.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 76, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 110, "end": 127, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 154, "end": 164, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 171, "end": 184, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 192, "end": 209, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The interim relief sought for in this interlocutory application is opposed by the 3 rd respondent, who is the 3rd claimant in L.A.R.No.73 of 2002, raising various contentions.", "entities": [ { "start": 126, "end": 145, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Total income after addition at 1,15,200 + (1,15,200 x 40%) the rate of 40% on account of = 1,61,280 future prospects 3. Income after 1/3rd deduction 1,61,280 - (1,61,280 x 1/3) on account of personal = 1,07,520 expenses ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Correspondingly, a judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from a judgment against a thing, right or status and a judgment in rem refers to a judgment that determines the status or condition of property which operates directly on the property itself.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Furthermore, it is contended that the notice under Section 13(2) was never served on the petitioner.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 64, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "While dealing with the findings of the High Court in the impugned judgment therein, made on the basis of an earlier decision of this Court in Ramanlal Gulab Chand Shah (supra), this Court in Godavari Sugar Mills (supra) observed that a legislation, which is incidental or ancillary to a statute protected under Article 31-B, can be assailed on the ground of inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 142, "end": 167, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 191, "end": 211, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 311, "end": 323, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 377, "end": 385, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 393, "end": 405, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In the Bihar Petition No. 58 of 1956 are set out the following bald allegations:", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 36, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The Ld. A.R. alternatively submitted that if the composite of rent and hire charges for the furniture and fixtures are taken together that could be taken the ALV and in defence of his proposition the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:\n \"1. Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxman 70 (Supreme Court)\n 2. CIT vs. Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. \"(2001) 116 Taxman 795 (Calcutta High Court)", "entities": [ { "start": 249, "end": 322, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 327, "end": 408, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "This, however, would, in its turn, render the words \"has been\" in the amended Section 36(2) meaningless.", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 91, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The definition of 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 65, "end": 72, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Significantly, Section 113 of the Act enables the State Government to prescribe the conditions for the issuance of permits for transport vehicles by the State or Regional Transport Authorities.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 26, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "\u201cLondon Arbitration is a well known phenomenon which is often chosen by foreign nationals with a dif- ferent law, such as the law of New York, governing the substantive rights of the parties.", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 7, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 133, "end": 141, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "When Respondent No.2 failed to respond and/or provide the documents sought, keeping in view the serious allegations of cheating, the Managing Committee of the School, in its meeting held on 12.01.1995, decided to extend his probation by one year.", "entities": [ { "start": 190, "end": 200, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that the Government of India has proposed the subject project at an estimated cost of about Rs.10,000 crores to develop a 276kms highway connecting Chennai and Salem.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 44, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 164, "end": 171, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 176, "end": 181, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 100, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 188, "end": 214, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The respondent No. 2/DDA shall also take appropriate steps in accordance with law in case of violation of such stipulation in the letter of allotment by the unaided schools.\"", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 24, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "A notification was issued under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for investigation by CBI in the murder of Haren Pandya.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 41, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 49, "end": 57, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 79, "end": 82, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 100, "end": 112, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "As per evidence of PW10 Dr Mahesh Gude and PM notes Exh. 103, 100 ml of semi- digested food with yellowish liquid was found in the stomach of deceased Siddhi.", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 38, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 151, "end": 157, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\nIt was held on the aforesaid facts, that the income received in British India could not be said to wholly arise in British India and that there should be allocation of income between the various business operations of the assessee demarcating the income arising in the taxable territories inthe particular year from the income arising without the taxable territories in that year.", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 79, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 125, "end": 130, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "It is, accordingly, held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay higher amount to some of the land owners and less compensation to others.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Learned counsel for the respondent informs that O. P. No. 1380/2014 under Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and O.P. No. 78/2015 under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, both filed by the respondent in the Family Court, Kollam, Kerala, have already been decided.", "entities": [ { "start": 48, "end": 67, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 74, "end": 84, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 92, "end": 115, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 126, "end": 135, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 143, "end": 160, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 165, "end": 181, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 188, "end": 206, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 214, "end": 232, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 270, "end": 298, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n A Constitution Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And Company And Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 1, had reiterated these principles.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 23, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 39, "end": 132, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are land owners whose lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 159, "end": 195, "label": "RESPONDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Further reliance has been placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 515, to submit, no challenge may be raised on the basis of violation of pre-existing Rules.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 73, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 77, "end": 135, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, the learned counsel appearing for Annadurai has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Natvarlal Amarshibhai Devani Vs. State of Gujarat and another [2017 Cri.L.J. 1911], wherein, it has been held that in the absence of a specific provision of law for voice test, the same cannot be permitted.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 52, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 114, "end": 132, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 136, "end": 218, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "This action does not do any credit for the State.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SBP and Co. (supra) while reversing earlier five-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. vs. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388 held that the power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is not an administrative power but is a judicial power.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 55, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 59, "end": 70, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 114, "end": 132, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 145, "end": 220, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 314, "end": 319, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 326, "end": 339, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 347, "end": 362, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This, in substance and effect, results in placing a reverse burden which is legally impermissible.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It was further contended that even if there was a conflict between the two decisions of this Court in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel and in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. Case both by Division Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges, the conflict can only be resolved by referring the case to a larger Bench of this Court.\" \n\n 36.", "entities": [ { "start": 106, "end": 181, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 189, "end": 228, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Her husband told that it is not possible to pay that much and the elders gathered there negotiated to give Rs. 1.5 lakhs cash and 10 tholas of gold in the form of ornaments to be put on bride.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "On a similar issue under consideration, in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., while explaining the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) speaking for the Bench, has observed as follows: (SCC p. 251, para 20) \"20. ...", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 80, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 166, "end": 177, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 202, "end": 211, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "But, in the present reference where no statutory provision is called into question, it is necessary for the court to analyse the relationship between what the statute penalizes and what the Constitution protects.", "entities": [ { "start": 190, "end": 202, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n It is settled legal position that, by way of interim relief, the final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other, (Mehul Mahendra Thakkar v. Meena Mehul Thakkar ; All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Govt. of T.N., ), as interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa.", "entities": [ { "start": 153, "end": 198, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 201, "end": 258, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Thus, Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed that in case of an adult who is mentally competent, the artificial feeding regime would be unlawful unless the patient consented to it as a mentally competent patient can, at any time, put an end to life support systems by refusing his consent to their continuation.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 27, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Rule 5(5) of Order XLI was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect from 01.02.1977.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 22, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 43, "end": 88, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 107, "end": 117, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Article 248 would have to be re- drafted as follows:\n \"Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not mentioned in the Concurrent List or State List, provided it has not been mentioned by way of exclusion in any entry in List I.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 11, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "According to definition of share capital shown in the scheme of 15 of 37 arrangement, the effective date when the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi approved the scheme was 16.07.2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 114, "end": 154, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 179, "end": 189, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand VS State of M.P & Ors. (2016)10 SCC 767 held in the context of the Registration Act 1908 that \"some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a case of mere irregularity.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 55, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 59, "end": 114, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 142, "end": 163, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This proposition is sought to be demonstrated by the delay in communication of the order declaring the petitioners wilful defaulters, which was passed on July 3, 2019, but was communicated only on January 18, 2020.", "entities": [ { "start": 154, "end": 166, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 197, "end": 213, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "(State of M.P. v. Bacchudas, (2007) 9 SCC 135 at SCC para 10 and State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar, (2005) 9 SCC 769 at SCC para 9.)", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 60, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 65, "end": 129, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 309 CTR 321 in support of the contention that the subscription fee and the membership fee does not form part of the revenue receipt.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 59, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 75, "end": 146, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Now, the burden is on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 76, "end": 97, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 101, "end": 107, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Mr. Sengupta in this regard has relied on Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (represented by Dy. Registrar) Vs. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors. reported at (2007) 10 SCC 201, and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that if the coordinate bench wants to take a different view, judicial proprietary requires that such matter be referred to a larger bench.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 12, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 42, "end": 181, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 212, "end": 225, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Reference was then made by Shri G. Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 405] wherein Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 44, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 64, "end": 154, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 163, "end": 174, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 182, "end": 199, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Moreover, since this decision was rendered prior to the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), the three\u00adJudge Bench did not have the benefit of referring to the observations made in that case.", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 87, "end": 105, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "These proceedings may be entertained either by the High Court or the Registrar on the application, and, at the instance, of the \"person aggrieved\". \n\n55.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Even at the time of death, Kanwar Raja Ram Singh was owner of land measuring 132 kanals 14 marlas in village Adhoya Hinduan.", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 48, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 109, "end": 123, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The right to create sub tenancy under the parent lease agreement of 4th October 1962 reads:\n\n \"5. Notwithstanding the permission of the lessor's first hand and obtained in writing to assign and/or transfer the lease of the demised premises but the lessor will have the right to sublet part of the premises on condition that the lessee will keep major portion of the premises under his occupation.\"\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 68, "end": 84, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The respondents have granted remission to two persons viz., Rama Chowhan (Accused No.4) and Mohan Rao Chowhan (Accused No.11), and they were released in the year 2011 itself.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 72, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 92, "end": 109, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "We reiterate that the Section 69(1) of the CGST Act provides for the power to arrest for both types of the offences i.e. cognizable and non bailable offences as well non-cognizable and bailable offences as per the provisions of the sub-section(5) and the sub- section(4) of the section 132 of the CGST Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 22, "end": 35, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 43, "end": 51, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 232, "end": 289, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 297, "end": 305, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "When he reached Mandadi village, two unknown persons came and over took Narasimha Rao-PW.1.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 31, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 72, "end": 85, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "The said compensation along with interest shall be paid by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, on the entire amount, interest @ 7.5% per annum shall be liable to be paid by the Respondent No.1. \n\n35.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident that the controversy revolves around the mechanism provided in the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 which have been framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.", "entities": [ { "start": 150, "end": 180, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 214, "end": 238, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that the fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has recommended that at the end of the period of three years, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto that period could be treated as Dearness Pay.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 57, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "As summarized by the Division Bench, if the dispute raised is of the kind falling within the categories (a), (b) or (c) stated above, C/FA/3351/2017 ORDER the Tribunal may give its finding in summary way.", "entities": [ { "start": 134, "end": 148, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "I had not given any complaints to the police against Sunita or her parents before 22.10.2006.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 59, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 82, "end": 92, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The 2nd document viz., the District Courts official memorandum dated 16-9-2008 was nothing but the show cause notice issued to the petitioner before the issue of the charge memo.", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 78, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Asadulla and Rashid reached hotel at 4/5 p.m.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 8, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 13, "end": 19, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "However, while this Commission was functioning, the Parliament constituted a Committee on welfare of Other Backward Classes under the Chairmanship of Shri B.K. Handique which presented its first report on 27 th August 2012 and it recommended that the NCBC should be conferred with a constitutional status and this saw light of the day by introduction of 123rd Bill.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 62, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 155, "end": 168, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 205, "end": 222, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 251, "end": 255, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n4) On appearance, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 53, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 54, "end": 57, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "She was designated as Head, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, by the Chandigarh Administration, on 10/14.09.2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 111, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 120, "end": 145, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 150, "end": 163, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "8.7 It is further submitted that the High Court ought to have acquitted the original Accused No.1 also by giving her the benefit of doubt, as was given to original Accused Nos.6 and 7.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Therefore, by an order reported in (2008) 14 SCC 337, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 52, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "When there is the want of general power to act, the court has no jurisdiction.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Section 231 of the IBC bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter in which the Adjudicating Authority i.e. the NCLT or the NCLAT is empowered by the Code to pass any Order.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 11, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 19, "end": 22, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 131, "end": 135, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 143, "end": 148, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "On 14 June, 2017 SBI suggested to the plaintiffs that it would make efforts to complete the transaction outside the purview of NCLT.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 16, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 17, "end": 20, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 127, "end": 131, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "On the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant, recorded by P.W.14 in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11 - mediators, he registered a case in Crime No.163/2011 under Sections 302 and 374(f) of IPC, issued express FIRs to all the concerned.", "entities": [ { "start": 151, "end": 168, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 175, "end": 198, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 202, "end": 205, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Further, Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 13) has specifically stated that Sitola Colony, Bhander is adjoining to the place of incident, and Ramjisharan (P.W.13) is the resident of Sitola Colony, Bhander.", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 30, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 85, "end": 92, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 136, "end": 147, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 191, "end": 198, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Therefore, the fact that the assessee furnished the second return on February 7, 1968, even before any investigation was http://www.judis.nic.in started by the income-tax department cannot be of any assistance to him, if the case does not fall within the scope of Section 139(5) of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 85, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 264, "end": 278, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "68 Marata(J) final.doc available in the Sate of Maharashtra from 52% to 68% and thereby crossing the barrier of the ceiling limit of 50% imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of in case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India1.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Counsel submits that these allegations were not stated by him in Ex.PW1/D1. \n\n24.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The facts further reveal that writ appeals were preferred i.e., W.A.Nos.157-176/2019 against the order passed in W.P.Nos.47171-190/2018 and the State Government took a stand before the Division Bench that it shall be withdrawing the notification dated 3.9.2018 and thereafter, a fresh notification will be issued on the subject.", "entities": [ { "start": 64, "end": 84, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 113, "end": 135, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 252, "end": 260, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC C/SCA/11794/2006 JUDGMENT 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 27, 32 to 35 and 38 as under:\n\"27.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 130, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 144, "end": 157, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Consequently, it flows from the above - 01.04.2021 onwards, all references to issuance of notice contained in the Enabling Act must be read as reference to the substituted provisions only.", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 50, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.08.2017 IN OA(EKM)NO.1613 OF 2017.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 62, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 66, "end": 88, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The catchment area as depicted in the map prepared by the Survey of India taken on record by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide orders dated 24.09.2004 and adopted by Chandigarh Administration thereafter officially as map of catchment area of 77 of 148 CWP No.18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions #78# Sukhna Lake is hereby published for the information of general public.", "entities": [ { "start": 58, "end": 73, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 105, "end": 132, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 151, "end": 161, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 177, "end": 202, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 263, "end": 283, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "(Manohar Lal Sharma14; Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights).", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The self-same petitioner by name VUSB Bhushan Kumar has maintained the two writ petitions against three Respondents by name (1).", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 51, "label": "PETITIONER" } ] }, { "text": "The case of the Plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that, Plaintiff was searching for some residential property in Roop Nagar area, Delhi and he was informed about the suit property by Property dealers- Shri Gagan Makkar and Shri Harmeet Singh (hereinafter \u201ethe brokers\u201f).", "entities": [ { "start": 133, "end": 138, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 209, "end": 221, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 231, "end": 244, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The police station Dhaurhara from his house is 40-50 steps.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 28, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The General Manager, Bihar, National Highway Authority of India, Headquarter, G 5 and 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110075.", "entities": [ { "start": 21, "end": 26, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 28, "end": 63, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 110, "end": 119, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The Court held: 13 (1995) 3 SCC 377 \u201c10. What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 35, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The later Act has inter-alia amended Section 19 of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 47, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Anomaly can be removed by reading down clause (a) of sub-section 1 of section 53 by striking down the words \"twenty four hours\".", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 80, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "[see Koteshwar Vittal Kamath v, K. Rangappa & Co., SCR at p. 48]", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 63, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The applicant claimed that the concentration of toxic substances in the air near her home constantly exceeded and continues to exceed the safe level established by the relevant legislation.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Significantly, formal FIR was registered at 12:30 pm.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "From the material on record, it is quite evident that the tractor and trolley purchased by the complainant, which the complainant was intending to get transferred in his name, were registered in the year 1980 and 1982 respectively.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 340, CrPC alleging offence punishable under Sections 193 and 419, IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 58, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 60, "end": 64, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 99, "end": 119, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 121, "end": 124, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?\" \n\n 130 of 148 CWP No.18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions #131#\n\n74.", "entities": [ { "start": 67, "end": 87, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Further, in re Pooja Ravinder Devidasani (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-\n\n \"17.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 40, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 54, "end": 67, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Hence we pass the following order:\n\n O R D E R (I) Both Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1211/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.301/2017 are allowed. \n\n Cri.Apeal 1211.18 (II)", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 106, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 111, "end": 138, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The Sessions Judge and the High Court, relying on Sachida Nand Singh, held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not apply where forgery of a document was committed before producing the said document in court.", "entities": [ { "start": 50, "end": 68, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 94, "end": 115, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The Land Acquisition Authority found that if 12 or 13 acres lands are left to the land owners, their most of the difficulties shall be removed and such proposal to this effect was sent.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "To find out as to whether a law made by State Legislature is inconsistent with provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution, the principles which have been laid down by this Court to determine the repugnancy between the law made by the Legislature of a State and law made by Parliament can be profitably relied on.", "entities": [ { "start": 93, "end": 101, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 109, "end": 121, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 273, "end": 283, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "In all the subsequent cases, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice to the parties when faced with a situation where the marriage ties had completely broken and there was no possibility whatsoever of the spouses coming together again.", "entities": [ { "start": 33, "end": 46, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 86, "end": 97, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 105, "end": 126, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of M. G. Aggarwal versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, the relevant part is extracted as under:\n \"(16) Section 423(1) prescribes the powers of the appellate Court in disposing of appeals preferred before it and clauses (a) and (b) deal with appeals against acquittals and appeals against convictions respectively.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 52, "end": 111, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 161, "end": 175, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "As per the proviso to Rules, 2004, in case of non-availability of suitable candidates, the remaining vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitment as per clause (i) thereof.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents contended, firstly, that plaintiff was not in possession of property in dispute and suit for injunction was filed without seeking any relief for possession, therefore, suit itself was not maintainable; Secondly, no objection was raised with regard to admissibility of secondary evidence; and, thirdly, argument advanced with regard to maintainability of First Appeal before District Judge is misconceived.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 13, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Hence, this writ petition has been filed by (3 of 21) [CW-8363/2021] the petitioner-non-applicant challenging the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Sikar.", "entities": [ { "start": 126, "end": 136, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 159, "end": 180, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In the case of Aligarh Devt. Auth. V/s. Megh Singh & Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provision of 1894 Act and 2013 Act, held that the stand of the authority that it had deposited 80% of the compensation with the land acquisition officer and hence it was for the owner to collect the money, cannot be appreciated.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 59, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 73, "end": 86, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "We direct the States to consider implementing the reformative and rehabilitation programmes contained in the 2016 Manual.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Indeed, in view of the discretion granted to an arbitral tribunal under Section 31 of the Act of 1996 the State could not have reasonably questioned the award of further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.", "entities": [ { "start": 72, "end": 82, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The High Court, therefore, gave benefit to said three accused as under:- Crl. Appeal Nos. 1709-1710 of 2019 (@ SLP [Crl.]Nos.2497-2498 of 2019) The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors. \n\n \u201c21.From the aforesaid quoted judgment", "entities": [ { "start": 73, "end": 198, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "He lodged a First Information Report with the police and after investigations, necessary proceedings were taken before the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot against the accused persons under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC). \n\n Crl. Appeal Nos._______/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7040-7041 of 2014)\n\n12.", "entities": [ { "start": 123, "end": 160, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 219, "end": 236, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 242, "end": 245, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 283, "end": 319, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "He had handed over all the parcels to ASI Ram Kishan which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF.10.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 52, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "P.W.82 Sarju Prasad had deposed that accused had stayed in his hotel, but he had failed to bring the register in this regard and no test identification parade was got conducted from him.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 19, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "11.6 The offence will be tried by a Court of Session in the district and the offences are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The delegates and the representatives had created a panic and they met the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court and made representation before the Hon'ble President of India and Hon'ble Prime Minister India and Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice.", "entities": [ { "start": 105, "end": 110, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 144, "end": 164, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 169, "end": 187, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 244, "end": 249, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 277, "end": 282, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "As a result, as many as thirty (30) more meritorious students than \"students of Karnataka\" as per the explanation, may lose an opportunity to seek admission to the respondent/Law School despite appearing in the national level entrance test being more meritorious than them.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 89, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court, in Githa Hariharan Dr. Vandana Shiva vs. Reserve Bank of India: Jayanta Bandhopadhiyaya, (1999) 2 SCC 228 had made important observations in regard to the dignity of women.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 17, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 22, "end": 124, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n There is no constitutional or legal bar on the State in categorizing women in social categories.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "This order was challenged which became the subject matter of the appeal in the aforesaid cases.", "entities": [] }, { "text": " The contention of the petitioner is that the authorities have allocated her to the State of Andhra Pradesh instead of State of Telangana without considering the objections raised by her and also on the sole ground that she studied upto Class X in the State of Andhra Pradesh.\n\n\n9. ", "entities": [ { "start": 95, "end": 109, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 130, "end": 139, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 263, "end": 277, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The tribunal had then clarified that it did not wish to receive further submissions on the time table and that its ruling of 20th April, 2016 vide PO-7 would hold.", "entities": [ { "start": 125, "end": 141, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Moreover because of many factors, one of CS No.3462/2016 PAGE NO. 45/54 M.L. GARG & ANR. v. N.D. GROVER THROUGH LRS being that English is not the first language in India and the level of proficiency even among the advocates who primarily draft the pleadings is different and at many times not up to the mark, the pleadings ought to be construed liberally.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 103, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 164, "end": 169, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\nExP4 Certified copy of sale deed dated 03/08/1995 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.11 and 12 in respect of land measuring 15 guntas including 2 guntas Kharab land in Sy.No. 61/1, Chellaghatta village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 51, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 207, "end": 227, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 229, "end": 242, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 244, "end": 265, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The children of the said Dr. Ghosh sometime in 2013 filed an eviction suit against the applicants herein before the learned Small Cause Court at Calcutta, before the Learned 4th Bench, which was registered as Ejectment Suit No.117 of 2013 (Sheila Guha Vs. Rajeev Maheshwari & Ors.).", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 34, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 124, "end": 153, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 209, "end": 281, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Amount collected by the State is going to Consolidated Fund under Article 266 which is applicable to the State and Union and not to local authorities like AMC.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 77, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 155, "end": 158, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "(Writ Tax No. 524/2021) decided in favour of assessees/petitioners on 30.09.2021 by holding inter alia in relevant Paragraph Nos. 63 to 80 as hereunder:\n \"63.", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 22, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 70, "end": 80, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The appellant, Akhilesh alias Putte has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2186 of 2008, assailing the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2008.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 35, "label": "PETITIONER" }, { "start": 50, "end": 82, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 142, "end": 152, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It was further alleged that the original plaintiff was placed in possession of the premises and subsequently in May, 1996, the original plaintiff paid `36,000/- more to the 1st respondent towards the sale consideration.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It would be relevant to quote from paragraph 1.10 of the said report under the head RATIONALE BEHIND MOVING TOWARDS GST as under:\n \"1.10 The introduction of GST would mark a clear departure from the scheme of distribution of fscal powers envisaged in the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 255, "end": 267, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "But on 27.01.2018, while finalizing the judgment, prima facie, the Court found that by virtue of the amendment of Rule 6.2.4, the reservation as is provided in 1994 Act has been incorporated whereas the provision for reservation of women, disabled candidates and ex-servicemen prima facie appears to be legislation by reference.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 17, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 114, "end": 124, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Mr. Ranjan Bachawat learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously argued that the suit for mesne profits is barred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the premise that the decree passed in the earlier suit for eviction is under appeal and appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 22, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 154, "end": 164, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 172, "end": 195, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Obviously, RBI did not consider the availability of alternatives before issuing the impugned circular.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 14, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "In Smt.M.Printer and others v. Marcel Martins (12 supra) and State of Maharashtra and another v. B.E.Billimoria (13 supra), the Hon'ble Courts took the same view.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 45, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 61, "end": 111, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "We have also examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel premised on various constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India), but have found, that no right can be stated to have been violated, thereunder.", "entities": [ { "start": 113, "end": 141, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 149, "end": 170, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "CW.14/PW.7- PSI, DCIB and CW.25/PW.15-PSI, Khanapur Crl.A.No.100190/2018 C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017, 100390/2017 AND 100397/2017 had ascertained that accused's calls were coming from Pavagada and Chittoor.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 51, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 52, "end": 72, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 78, "end": 99, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 101, "end": 112, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 117, "end": 128, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 183, "end": 191, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 196, "end": 204, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The abovesaid appeal has been filed against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dated 29.07.2015 in Special Civil Application No.12084 of 2015 dismissing the writ petition following an earlier Division Bench judgment dated 13.08.2010 in Pankajsinh Waghela v. State Election Commission through Election Commissioner & others.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 78, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 85, "end": 95, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 99, "end": 141, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 222, "end": 232, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 236, "end": 322, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The defendant was very particular in using all the alphabets in his name and his signatures and even the point for CS No.3462/2016 PAGE NO. 24/54 M.L. GARG & ANR. v. N.D. GROVER THROUGH LRS the alphabet (i) was not missed by the defendant in his signatures.", "entities": [ { "start": 115, "end": 189, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Evidence of Mukteshwar (PW\u00ad5) is that Mihir assaulted Anil and Jatu with the axe on their heads whereas Prabhat with another brother assaulted Premchand and Puranchand.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 22, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 38, "end": 43, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 54, "end": 58, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 63, "end": 67, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 104, "end": 111, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 143, "end": 152, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 157, "end": 167, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Mr. Trivedi relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 11, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 40, "end": 50, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 66, "end": 140, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The present Vice-Chancellor under its letter dated 9-1-1993 addressed to the Governors Secretariat by Patna High Court CWJC No.23014 of 2018 dt.23-12-2020 pointing out the provisions of Bihar Medical Educational (Regulation and Control Act, 1981 (herein after State Regulation Act) raised various objections regarding the validity and enforceability of the aforesaid transitory regulation, which contemplated for holding of examination of the students of the petitioner institution.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 59, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 102, "end": 118, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 119, "end": 140, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 141, "end": 154, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 186, "end": 245, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 260, "end": 280, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Petitioner Bishan Das and others came to manage Dharmasala, Temple and the shops etc.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 21, "label": "PETITIONER" } ] }, { "text": "By such time, the limitation to approach the appellate authority under section 127 has set in and by reason of non-attraction of principles underlying section 5 of the 1963 Act, the remedy of appeal has become barred.", "entities": [ { "start": 71, "end": 82, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 151, "end": 160, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "These enactments are important instances as to how the legislature continues to monitor the application of the Commercial Courts Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 111, "end": 132, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "We have gone Crl.A No.100345/2017 through the entire evidence on record on reappreciation of the same we find that 12. P.W.1 who is a distant relative of the accused, in his examination has stated that the deceased Laxmi is the wife of the accused, Sangamesh is the son and Sangeeta is the daughter.", "entities": [ { "start": 13, "end": 33, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 215, "end": 220, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 249, "end": 258, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 274, "end": 282, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "On the entire sum calculated above, interest at the same rate of 15% was awarded for the post-award period till realization.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\nCounsel further contends that, by reason of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter \"the Act\"), this limited interest blossomed into an absolute interest.", "entities": [ { "start": 45, "end": 74, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 82, "end": 108, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "He goes on to state that the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora is a carpenter by profession and has worked for him as such: he has made the doors and (Chaukhat), a wooden frame fixed in the wall in which doors are fixed, of the house of this witness which is being constructed in Kadri Colony, Mohalla Sotha, District Badaun.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 52, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 308, "end": 314, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "As would be manifest from a reading of Section 3(13) of the Act, it is only land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, pisciculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or poultry farming which could be subjected to proceedings under the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 52, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "It is for the purpose of taking the public in Delhi into confidence and working for their benefit that an opportunity was granted to make suggestions and raise objections to the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and which were not objected to by the learned Attorney General on 15-5-2018 keeping in view the spirit behind the invitation to object and make suggestions and curtailment of the normal statutory period.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 51, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 283, "end": 292, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Shortly stated, the question is, could the Indian Legislature under the Act of 1935 enact that the executive could extend to Delhi laws that may be made hereinafter by a legislature in Timbuctoo or Soviet Russia with modifications.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 61, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 125, "end": 130, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 185, "end": 194, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 198, "end": 211, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 7) Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the accused has admitted that the dishonoured cheques in question bears her signature and legal presumption of consideration u/s 139 of NI Act would act against the accused.", "entities": [ { "start": 180, "end": 185, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 189, "end": 195, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Janakiammal and her son Somasundaram did not get any immovable property in the compromise decree except shares of the Vasudeva mills, a sick company.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 11, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 24, "end": 36, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 118, "end": 132, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Moreover, minimum wage of a skilled labourer in the State of Haryana as notified under the Minimum Wages Act was about `10,000/- per month at the relevant time.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 68, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 91, "end": 108, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Going by the aforesaid provision which stood before amendment the Supreme Court has explained in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 79, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 109, "end": 155, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Still further counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FAO No. 5158 of 2015 titled as 'Rakesh Gulati (since deceased) through LRs v. Sanjiv Kumar and others' decided on 2.12.2019.", "entities": [ { "start": 95, "end": 115, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 127, "end": 196, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 209, "end": 218, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "He stated that the notice regarding constitution of the team was given to him in writing.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n 62] However, since, in Tapasya Pisal (supra), the Supreme Court in the concluding portion of its decision had used the expression \"in the interests of justice\" , it was suggested at Bar, that this was probably a case of the Supreme Court exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which powers undoubtedly, this Court does not possess.", "entities": [ { "start": 26, "end": 39, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 53, "end": 66, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 227, "end": 240, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 269, "end": 280, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 288, "end": 309, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The doctor has further stated that on 24.11.2012, the Ullal Police have sent six packed and sealed covers alongiwth weapons for examination and out of six weapons, two are sickles, two are talwars and two are rods.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 48, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 54, "end": 66, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "But in the cross- examination of PW-1, the complainant stated that on 25/05/2016 at about 8 AM through telephonic talk the accused asked the loan amount and he had paid the said amount in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 i.e., Ramesh and Gopalakrishna.", "entities": [ { "start": 70, "end": 80, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 224, "end": 230, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 235, "end": 248, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "The controversy that emerged for decision therein was, could an appeal under section 127 of the 2003 Act, carried from an order of assessment made under section 126 thereof, be entertained by the appellate authority if the same were presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 127 itself upon condonation of delay in its presentation?", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 88, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 153, "end": 164, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 289, "end": 300, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Consequently the 11th Schedule containing amendments to the Companies Act, 2013 also came into force on 15.11.2016.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 30, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 60, "end": 79, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 104, "end": 114, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In view of the expression used in Sec- tion 2(2), the maxim expressum facit cessare tacitum, would not permit by interpretation to hold that Part I would also apply to arbitrations held outside the terri- tory of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 48, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 213, "end": 218, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Secondly, Smt.Sandhya (PW-3), the employer of the deceased in her cross examination has admitted that the family of the deceased was receiving family pension of Rs.15,000/- per month.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 24, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "We follow Godse's case (supra) to hold that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath, and whatever the length of remissions earned, the prisoner can claim release only if the remaining sentence is remitted by Government. \n\n7.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 15, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Hence, we have before us a community which is conclusively established to be backward and has reached its Nadir on account of their economic distress and the State in its enabling power is duty bound to lead a helping hand to this community in exercise of the duty patil-sachin.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In the meantime, since the Court had ordered a deposit of a sum of Rs.20 crores in Court and it was thereafter deposited by the defendant no.1, in the Fort Branch, a notice of motion had been taken up seeking withdrawal of the said amount.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He deposed that he had seen the accident from 100 foot.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Having noticed the scope of Section 51A of the LA Act as understood by this Court in V. Narasaiah's case to be the correct interpretation, we will now consider whether such evidence is mandatorly binding on the authority or the court concerned or it is only an enabling provision.", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 39, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 47, "end": 53, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 85, "end": 97, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court http://www.judis.nic.in would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court by judgment dated 14.2.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1665/2019 (Sunita and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.) has held as under :-\n\n \"20........", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 17, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 36, "end": 45, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 56, "end": 153, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "He sent letter to RTO, Barasat for submission of report with regard to registration no. WB-26C-3869.", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 30, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "My findings to the above points is as follows;\n 1. Point No.1: In the affirmative 2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;\n REASONS 08.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "APP (DB) No.306 of 2015 dt.18-04-2019 accompanied the victim up to Barabar Hills there is no other evidence on record to show that he participated in subsequent action or not.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 23, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 24, "end": 37, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "To demonstrate this view of the Delhi High Court, the following decisions were cited by Mr. Kohli:\n 21.1.Gulf DTH FZ LLC vs Dish TV Limited & Ors.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 48, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 92, "end": 97, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 100, "end": 145, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "On 30.09.2008, a return of income was filed for the assessment year 2008-2009 declaring a total income of INR 92,54,89,822.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 13, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The plaintiff of Suit No.37 of 1984 Senthil Kumaravel in his written statement in Suit No. 1101 of 1987 has clearly stated that he filed the Suit No.37 of 1984 at the instance of defendant No.1, which fact has also been noted in paragraph 9 of the trial court\u2019s judgment. \n\n87.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 35, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 36, "end": 53, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 82, "end": 103, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 141, "end": 159, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "1. U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Commission') has been established by the State of Uttar Pradesh for recruitment etc. to subordinate services in different departments of the State, pursuant to The U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 2014'), vide Act No. 20 of 2014.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 48, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 124, "end": 146, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 247, "end": 302, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 357, "end": 375, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The suit was decreed but the Appellate Court reversing the decree held that the findings of the Land Tribunal leading to the certificate dated 24.03.1970 could not be examined by the Civil Court and that no case has been made out by the respondents that the Land Tribunal had failed to follow the procedure under the Act and the Rules in awarding the certificate.", "entities": [ { "start": 143, "end": 153, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "After consultation with other stake holders like Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Women and Child Development, a Cabinet Note on \"Review of legal provisions pertaining to sexual assault - Proposal to amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872\" was finalized and sent to the Cabinet for consideration on 2 nd July, 2012.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 76, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 81, "end": 120, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 221, "end": 244, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 250, "end": 282, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 291, "end": 316, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 377, "end": 392, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Most of the permits obtained under sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Act in the States other than the State of Karnataka are made use of for the purported use of running the tourist buses by actually the permits were misused to run the tourist vehicle either as stage carriages or as contract carriages.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 64, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 114, "end": 123, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "During the course of investigation, P.W.18 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and seized the material objects - bloodstained stone, bangle pieces, electrical plastic wire etc., under the cover of observation report duly attested by P.W.11 and L.W.15 Kalukuri Vijaya Kumar, and got the scene of offence photographed by P.W.12.", "entities": [ { "start": 271, "end": 292, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "This Court in Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 497 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 571 : AIR 1975 SC 1727] has laid down that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and Crl.A. No.100106/2016 unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.", "entities": [ { "start": 14, "end": 108, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 294, "end": 315, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "No doubt that a secured creditor may initially resort to the procedure under Section 13(4) and on facing resistance, he may still approach the Magistrate under Section 14.", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 90, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 160, "end": 170, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "It is 33 C.C.13916 of 2017 alleged in the complaint that, the owner of of the above said land by name Smt. Jayalakshmi had executed another agreement of sale in favour of the accused.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 26, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 107, "end": 118, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "To support the submission as to transfer of the winding up petitions with all connected applications from this Court to NCLT, the said creditors relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Impex Ferro Tech Limited Vs. Auroma Coke Ltd. (APO No.273 of 2018) dated 17.12.2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 120, "end": 124, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 219, "end": 285, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 292, "end": 302, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "But however, the Advocates Act, 1961 only speaks about the rights of the Advocates to practice in any Court or authorities and it does not speaks about the rights of the parties to engage a counsel before the Supreme Court or any other forum .\"", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 36, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 209, "end": 222, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "A challenge to an appointment of the respondent made five years after his confirmation was held to be long and inexplicable delay and the grievance to be too stale to merit redress in State of Orissa Vs. Arun Kumar, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1640.", "entities": [ { "start": 184, "end": 244, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "For the purpose of this \"hiving off Jodhpur Mining Organization\", Delhi High Court observed that this aspect ought to have been considered at the first instance, hence, it remanded the matter to BIFR for considering proposal of hiving off of Jodhpur Mining Organization into a separate entity.", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 63, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 66, "end": 82, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 195, "end": 199, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 242, "end": 269, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of theAct mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.", "entities": [ { "start": 41, "end": 52, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The plaintiff also learnt that one Govinda Chowdary filed a suit alleging that he was having share in the family properties of the defendants and the said suit was pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ananthapur, wherein he obtained a temporary injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property.", "entities": [ { "start": 35, "end": 51, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 210, "end": 220, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "ANALYSIS:\n6. From perusal of the same, it is evident that as per the case set up by the appellant/complainant that the appellant claims that the amount in question was advanced in cash in the presence of two witnesses Vinod Kumar and Priya Kapoor, after withdrawing the amount from the bank i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank, Tarn Taran.", "entities": [ { "start": 218, "end": 229, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 234, "end": 246, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 296, "end": 316, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 318, "end": 328, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 51] In X and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. - (2017) 3 SCC 458, the Supreme Court was concerned with a pregnancy which had advanced into the 24 th week.", "entities": [ { "start": 10, "end": 67, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 73, "end": 86, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The mortgage deed dated 22.02.2007, Ex.PW1/2 reads to the effect:\n \"And whereas all above three sons and daughters of late Durga Prasad (Dwarka Prasad) executed a relinquishment deed in respect of said property in favor of their mother i.e. second party Smt. Kamla Devi.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 34, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 123, "end": 135, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 137, "end": 150, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 259, "end": 269, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "If a person has also been undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, on subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, as per Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C., the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.", "entities": [ { "start": 139, "end": 153, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 157, "end": 164, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In a nutshell the objections were that the alleged benami transactions took place at the time of operation of the 1988 Act prior to the 2016 amendment.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The post of Army Commander/Vice Chief of Army Staff, in the rank of Lieutenant General, is the second highest in the hierarchy of the Indian Army, below the Chief of Army Staff.", "entities": [ { "start": 134, "end": 145, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9267 of 2017 dimension was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest.", "entities": [ { "start": 79, "end": 151, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 191, "end": 210, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "He has submitted that in the instant case, G.S.T. evasion of more than Rs. 100 crores is involved.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Reference was then made by Shri G. Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 277: 1983 SCC (Cri) 405] wherein Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 44, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 64, "end": 127, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 136, "end": 147, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 155, "end": 172, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This has resulted in slow pace of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n The introduction, statement of objects and reasons to the legal Metrology Act, 2009 reads thus:\n INTRODUCTION: \nIn 1956 uniform standards of weights and measures based on metric systems were established, which were revised in 1976 with a view to give effect to the international system of units.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 86, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Court observed that where the Constitution thought it ft to do so, it has itself provided for elections by secret ballot e.g. in the case of election of the President of India and the Vice- President of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 34, "end": 46, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 174, "end": 179, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 207, "end": 212, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The High Court appointed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to examine the correctness of key answers.", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 72, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "AIR 1957 SC 434:: 1957 SCR 452 between Smt.Kamala Devi and another V/s Bachulal Gupta and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, it is true that a gift becomes legally effective only when a registered instrument is executed in the manner laid down in S.123 T.P. Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 96, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 118, "end": 128, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 266, "end": 271, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 272, "end": 280, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is important to note here that in S.Rajaseekaran, the Supreme Court recorded the recommendations of working Group.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 51, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 57, "end": 70, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The term \"district\" has been referred to as a revenue area under Section 5 of the Code, 2006, and in terms thereof two or more districts may form a division, and a district may consist of two or more tahsils, each tahsil may consist of one or more parganas, each pargana may consist of two or more villages.", "entities": [ { "start": 65, "end": 74, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Section 2(1)(zb) defines security agreement to mean an agreement, instrument or any other document or arrangement under which security interest is created in favour of the secured creditor, including the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the secured creditor.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 16, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The Tribunal also noticed that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 19 persons including the driver and that there was no evidence placed on record by the insurer that there were more than 19 people traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "We see no reason, therefore, to interdict the tender notification at the behest of the appellants who, admittedly, do not fulfill the main eligibility criteria of having manufactured and supplied 1000 sq. mm 220 KV copper conductor cables of a length of 245 KMs, and of laying underground cables of such quality, size and length.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "I can very firmly say that the power under Section 22 of the said Act was fully preserved while enacting the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 53, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 109, "end": 153, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "So the employees of government-aided and public schools are, therefore, governed by the said scheme and not by the said 1948 Act, and it is not the case of the State Government that both the said scheme and the said 1948 Act are to be extended to the employees of government-aided and public schools.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In an off shoot on an application for probate originally filed by one Mustafi in the Court of the District Judge.", "entities": [ { "start": 70, "end": 77, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "She was medically examined on 17-10-2000 at 12:40 A.M. in the night and following injuries were found on her body :\n 1. Firearm gun shot injury wound of entrance on the right side of abdomen near (Not \"legible\" but as per evidence \"Navel\") inverted margins oval shape.", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 40, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n After fresh investigation, CBI filed a charge-sheet bearing No. 1/2010 in the present case on 13-1-2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 33, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 97, "end": 106, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "[Indtel Technical Services (P) Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd., (2008) 10 SCC 308", "entities": [ { "start": 1, "end": 79, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The appellant relied on Tirlok Nath v. Union of India [1967 SLR 759 (SC)] in support of the proposition that if a public servant facing an inquiry is not supplied copies of documents, it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 73, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "By the impugned order, the execution court allowed E.A.No.780 of 2020 and the 6 th O.P.(C)No.446 of 2021 & :-81-:\nC.R.P.No.81 of 2021 respondent District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, was directed to approve change of management of the school, based on the application made by the decree holders.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 69, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 78, "end": 104, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 114, "end": 133, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 175, "end": 184, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "When the bus had covered about 3- 4 kilometers from Mahwa towards Dausa, there was a loud blast in the bus near Samleti village.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 57, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 66, "end": 71, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 112, "end": 127, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, title of an immovable property gets transferred only on execution of a registered instrument evidencing sale and / or transfer.", "entities": [ { "start": 7, "end": 17, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 25, "end": 47, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Emphasis on technical meaning has been highlighted in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 585] for resolving classification related disputes of goods.", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 151, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section - 273 of IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 109, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 117, "end": 124, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 252, "end": 265, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 269, "end": 272, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 332, "end": 345, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 349, "end": 352, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "For a part of Navi Mumbai, the Municipal Corporation of city of Navi Mumbai (for short `the said Corporation') is the Planning Authority within the meaning of MRTP Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 14, "end": 25, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 31, "end": 75, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 159, "end": 167, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "For Crl.Appeal No.567 of 2014 and considering merit of the prosecution case that the accused 2, 3 and 5 made deceased Varma to drink juice mixed with alcohol and thereafter they administered chloroform to stupefy him, the testimony of PW40 Jose M.Philip and his report (Ext.P84), oral evidence tendered by PW66 Prameela S. and her reports (Exts.P160 to P162) and also the testimony of PW69 Dr.N.A.Balaram will be relevant.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 29, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 118, "end": 123, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 240, "end": 253, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 311, "end": 322, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 393, "end": 404, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Since the appeals have arisen out of decision of two civil suit Nos.436-CS of 2005 and 76 of 2005, the facts are being taken from lead case, i.e. RSA No.1102 of 2013.", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 100, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 149, "end": 168, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "Ext.A23 series are statements of monthly rent collected by the proprietor of Nandilath Towers for the years 2003-13 from the tenants of Nandilath buildings.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful - 94 - assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 318, "end": 329, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 330, "end": 333, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 233. Article 48 has to be read conjointly with Article 1.2.1 (b) which provides that references to laws of India or Indian law or regulation having the force of law shall include the laws, acts, ordinances, rules, regulations, bye laws or notifications which have the force of law in the territory of India and as from time to time may be amended, modified, supplemented, extended or re-enacted.", "entities": [ { "start": 8, "end": 18, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 50, "end": 68, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 111, "end": 116, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 305, "end": 310, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "It was contended by Mr. D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for one of the petitioners that the role of the Portfolio/Inspecting Judge in assessing the performance of an officer is very vital and that therefore, if he is not present when a review is undertaken by the Administrative Committee at the time of the officer attaining the age of 58 years, the same may vitiate the whole process.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Accordingly, I hold that the Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of R.C. & E.O. passed on review petition of the landlord filed before R.C. & E.O. and rightly allowed the review petition of the landlord filed before R.C. & E.O. and quashed the allotment in favour of the Bankey Lal.\" \n\n 20.", "entities": [ { "start": 284, "end": 294, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Ex.D.1 & D2 were made on 21.04.2005.", "entities": [ { "start": 25, "end": 35, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "This led to passing of an Award dated 18.03.2016 in favour of Blueberry / Decree Holder and against Iceberg-Judgment Debtor.", "entities": [ { "start": 38, "end": 48, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The wife filed petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the plea suit is not maintainable in terms of Section 4 of Benami Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 47, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 48, "end": 51, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 122, "end": 131, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 135, "end": 145, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Paltry amount of Rs. 2 lacs was offered towards 80% of the compensation to the land owner/ petitioner while invoking Circular dated 16.08.2001, which had been issued in respect of agricultural lands.", "entities": [ { "start": 132, "end": 142, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "On a careful consideration, there- fore, of the authorities referred to above, the following propositions emerge:\n 1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments con- tain inconsistent and irreconcil- able provisions, so that they can- not stand together or operate in the same field. \n\n 2.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is also a fact that an SLP instituted against the opinion (supra), has also been declined by the Supreme Court on 28 th April, 2017 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12328/2017.", "entities": [ { "start": 100, "end": 113, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 117, "end": 134, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 138, "end": 180, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "For the purposes of this sub-section, certificate of insurance means the certificate issued under sub-section (3) of section 147. \n\n(4) If the licence referred to in sub-section (2) or the certificates or permit referred to in sub-section (3), as the case may be, are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made", "entities": [ { "start": 98, "end": 128, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 166, "end": 181, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 227, "end": 242, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "This is also borne out from illustration (c) to Section 300 IPC which is being reproduced below: -\n \"(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club- wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature.", "entities": [ { "start": 48, "end": 59, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 60, "end": 63, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n The principle of attribution has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai& Co.: 18 ITR 472.", "entities": [ { "start": 63, "end": 85, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 101, "end": 144, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "He has further deposed that thereafter, SI Jagdish prepared site plan at his instance and thereafter, he left the spot.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 50, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "With this background, let us analyse the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "But the decision of the Circuit Court was appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida.", "entities": [ { "start": 99, "end": 106, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "This Court in a Public Interest Litigation in Writ Petition No.196 of 2001, People\u2019s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India and 4 others, had issued various directions for protection of right to food of the poor and the underprivileged sections including children and women.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 142, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "A second enquiry was initiated against the appellant through a memorandum dated 6 April 2011 on the charge that the petitioner without depositing the pistol and ammunition proceeded to Mukhed.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 92, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 185, "end": 191, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Rule 4(vi) stipulates that the fees or scale of fees determined by the AFRC shall be valid for a period of three years.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 10, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 71, "end": 75, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n It will be open for the respondents to give their say on the merits of each of the 339 complainants. \n\n ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Similarly, judgment of this Court in Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure Vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 576 was a case where an interim order was passed by this Court with regard to acquisition of 67.703 acres of land as was noticed in Ismail Faruqui\u2019s case.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 108, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 237, "end": 253, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The Bill was introduced by the State Government on 29 th patil-sachin.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Various properties were mortgaged/hypothecated as security therefor.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "(3) The percentage of landless and marginal farmers (lands ownership less than 2.5 acres) is found to be around 71% amongst the Maratha families whereas the percentage of big farmers holding about 10 acres of land is only 2.7%.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras, addressed the Commissioner, Thoothukudi Panchayat vide letter dated 23.02.1987, by which the consent was granted for construction and commissioning of the petitioner in the land in SIPCOT industrial complex.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 49, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 79, "end": 100, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 119, "end": 129, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "He did not meet him before 24.04.2011.", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 37, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": ",\n\n it was stated that pursuant to an amendment in the Waqf Act, 1995 ('the Central Act' for short) in the year 2013, the Waqf Board took a decision to acquire the Waqf property and place it under its direct control for the purpose of development.", "entities": [ { "start": 62, "end": 76, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 137, "end": 147, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "During the course of search at the residence of one Madan Mohan Gupta, the incriminating documents including a pocket diary were seized.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 69, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 6, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "A concern would risk undertaking such exploration and incur heavy costs only if it was assured utilisation of the resource discovered: a prudent business venture would not like to incur the high costs involved in exploration activities and then compete for that resource in an open auction.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Cheque was filled up by Anil Kumar Gupta himself.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 40, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "However, neither Shamlal Agrawal (PW-1) deposed regarding signing of Will by Kasturmal Agrawal in presence of two witnesses and signing of Will by witnesses in presence of Kasturmal Agrawal, nor the plaintiff has examined any witness to prove the same compliance.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 32, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 77, "end": 94, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 172, "end": 189, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner examined two witnesses, namely, C.S. Aggarwal (the petitioner) as PW-1 and Anil Sharma as PW-2.", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 60, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 90, "end": 101, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "(iv) Where the contract provides that the standard form of terms and conditions of an independent trade or professional institution (as for example the standard terms and conditions of a trade association or architects association) will bind them or apply to the contract, such standard form of terms and conditions including any provision for arbitration in such standard terms and conditions, shall be deemed to be incorporated by reference.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Hence, applying the test aforesaid, to the question of retrospective application of the amended provisions, involved in the instant batch of writ applications, would make it evident that the object in introduction of the amendments, through Benami Amendment Act of 2016, is to effectively cure the mischief which could not be checked effectively, as intended by the Principal Act of 1988.", "entities": [ { "start": 241, "end": 269, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 366, "end": 387, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that the Hon\u2019ble High Court directed in its order dated 20.06.2019 in WP No.17384 of 2019 that the respondents are to submit a report in the form of an affidavit, duly supported by documents as to what action has been taken against the alleged violations.", "entities": [ { "start": 72, "end": 82, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 86, "end": 105, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The said judgment was reported in M. Venkateswara Rao v. Secretary, RTA, Warangal, 2000(1)ALT170 .", "entities": [] }, { "text": "As a result, there is no justification for invoking para 5 of the O.M. of 1986.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "So, the cheque was issued for Rs.50,000/- as a B.C. amount.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The petitioner has studied from 1983 to 1989 in Krishna District, which comes under the State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 48, "end": 64, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 97, "end": 111, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The employees, however, were demanding the introduction of a pension scheme.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Subsequently, Smt. S.P.S. Gowri sold the land to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 13.03.2008 and the document was presented for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act on 13.03.2008.", "entities": [ { "start": 19, "end": 31, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 85, "end": 95, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 192, "end": 208, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 212, "end": 222, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The first and second consignments were dispatched on 28.9.2003 and 10.10.2003 respectively which were lost and could not be traced as per the report submitted by the defendant no. 2 transporter.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 62, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 67, "end": 77, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In Rajesh (supra), the Apex Court noticed that, after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act by Act 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, the report on motor vehicle accident prepared by the police officer and forwarded to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 has to be MACA No. 480 of 2012, etc. treated as an application for compensation.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 9, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 23, "end": 33, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 75, "end": 93, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 130, "end": 140, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 253, "end": 283, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 294, "end": 314, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has attained finality between the parties and none of the respondents can re-", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 70, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Legislative policy also aims for giving finality of the litigation, simultaneously providing higher forum of appeal/revision to vend the grievances of an aggrieved party.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n Prosecution has sought to rely on the evidence of P.W.s 2, 4 to 8 with regard to the recovery of 191 kgs of ganja from the rear seat of a Tata Mahindra Marshal vehicle bearing registration no.WB-26C-3869 at Helabattala, Barasat around 6.15 a.m. of 27.09.2006 which was driven and occupied by the appellants.", "entities": [ { "start": 210, "end": 221, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 223, "end": 230, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 251, "end": 261, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "At 20.45 hrs on 21.06.2010, Hanmant Sheshrau Shirsat gave a statement in the Miraj Rural Police Station that his daughter who was 9 years old and studying in the 4 th standard at Shri Samarth Ashram School, Bedag was missing since 10.00 am.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 26, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 28, "end": 52, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 77, "end": 103, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 179, "end": 212, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In this context, reliance has been placed on an order dated 24 September 2013 of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP(C) No 30381 of 2011 when the Court was seized of a tender dispute relating to transportation of fly ash.", "entities": [ { "start": 60, "end": 77, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 116, "end": 139, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The second writ petition has been filed by Association of Power Producers ( Writ-C No. 23181 of 2018) and the third writ petition (Writ-C No. 23183 of 2018) by Prayagraj Power Generation Company Limited.", "entities": [ { "start": 76, "end": 100, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 131, "end": 155, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 160, "end": 202, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.33868 of 2013 submitted that the respondents resorted to acquire lands in terms of the impugned notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act is unfounded and unsustainable in law, since it doesn't come within the purview of the above said Act and the respondents ought to have invoked the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.", "entities": [ { "start": 92, "end": 112, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 232, "end": 245, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 477, "end": 503, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This Court has perused the decision in M/s. Lotus Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and finds that it has set out the relevant portions of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 68, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 160, "end": 173, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In the said letter it is also stated that BBMP had sanctioned plans for wings A to K upto 17 floors vide its order dated 24.02.2012 issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning, BBMP and further based on the NOC issued for 62 meters, they have constructed the building for the said height.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 46, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 121, "end": 131, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 177, "end": 181, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "He cited the judgment of this Court in Pazhukkamattom Devaswom v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1980 KLT 645) in support and argued that the question of jurisdiction of an Additional District Judge to consider and grant leave under Section 92 of the CPC is no longer res integra, it having been answered affirmatively in this judgment.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 98, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 221, "end": 231, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 239, "end": 242, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The absence of a proper witness protection programme and its adverse effect on the criminal justice system has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court both in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 and in the National Human Rights Commission (supra).", "entities": [ { "start": 136, "end": 149, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 158, "end": 218, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 230, "end": 262, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "the Petitioner Bank submitted that an accused person is punishable for contravention of Section 46(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 only when the return/balance-sheet/other document/information has been provided by or under or for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.", "entities": [ { "start": 88, "end": 101, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 109, "end": 137, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 282, "end": 310, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellant Ms.Kiran Suri referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire [1987 ACJ 311] wherein the Court dealt with a similar contention and observed thus:\n \"8.", "entities": [ { "start": 71, "end": 81, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 114, "end": 131, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 135, "end": 212, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "R. S. Ghuraiya (P.W. 20) has investigated the matter.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 14, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "Reference, in this connection, may also be made to Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319 : JT (2005) 11 SC 439] .\n\n\n\n23.", "entities": [ { "start": 51, "end": 125, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n P.W.2 Kubendroji Rao has deposed that the marriage talks took place in the house of P.W.1 at Channagiri and on the side of the bride, himself, Channa Veeroji Rao, Shivaji Rao, Ningoji Rao and parents of bride were present.", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 23, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 96, "end": 106, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 146, "end": 164, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 166, "end": 177, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 179, "end": 190, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "As per the study details of the petitioner, she has been rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh as per her local status.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 105, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The purpose and object is very obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 CrPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 87, "end": 107, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 108, "end": 112, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Thus, it was never alleged against the Appellants that they had killed the deceased Anuja at the spot, where her dead body was found.", "entities": [ { "start": 84, "end": 89, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The shop of Imambaksh is approximately 12 ft wide.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 21, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The Appellant initially denied any knowledge about the missing girl.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent \u2013 Central Bureau of Investigation has very vehemently opposed the grant of bail.", "entities": [ { "start": 75, "end": 106, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Immediately, he himself, heading the police party proceeded to the spot when they found the door of the Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2018 dt. 11 -11-2020 house to be bolted from inside and T.V. on as they could hear the sound; blood appeared to be flowing on the street.", "entities": [ { "start": 104, "end": 120, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 121, "end": 141, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 146, "end": 157, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court observed \"He can take recourse to a procedure recognized and accepted in law to retrieve and redeem his reputation\".", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 17, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "From the above three decisions, the following principles can be deduced: 1) the propounder of the Will has to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, and (2) in order to prove the Will, one of the attestors has to be examined in view of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. \n\n39", "entities": [ { "start": 272, "end": 282, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 286, "end": 305, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 310, "end": 320, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 328, "end": 349, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "However, the Writ Petitioners before us ultimately succeed because, Article 254(1) by its operation rendered the impugned Tamil Nadu Legislations repugnant, and null and void, as on the date on which the New Act was made, i.e. 27.09.2013, the date of making of the New Act, as held in the case of State of Kerala v Maar AppraemKuri Co. (Supra) and therefore the impugned Acts do not survive.", "entities": [ { "start": 68, "end": 82, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 227, "end": 237, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 297, "end": 335, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Transportation is an entirely different activity from manufacture and this position remains settled by the judgment of Honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Tyre International 1983 (14) ELT, Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1988 (36) ELT 723 SC and Baroda Electric Meters 1997 (94) ELT 13 SC.", "entities": [ { "start": 129, "end": 142, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 159, "end": 198, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 200, "end": 239, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 244, "end": 286, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Hence I pass an award for Rs. 49,96,719/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in addition to costs calculated hereunder Interest pendente lite on Rs. 49,96,719/- for 4 years and 10 months and 5 days comes to Rs. 43,59,637/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "That, during the trial, accused Mohd. Aslam (A3) died and, therefore, the case of the said accused was ordered to be abated.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 43, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n She further stated that in summer of 2005, Sabeena (A-8) took her to a hotel where they met accused Anil Sethi (A-7), who took her to Imperial Hotel, Nehru Park and had sexual intercourse with her in a room on the second floor of the hotel.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 53, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 103, "end": 113, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Permanent Residential Certificate issued from outside the State upto 24th March, 1971 (midnight) (which all should be got verified from the issuing authority by the Registering authority)\n\n6. Refugee registration certificate issued upto 24th March, 1971 (midnight)\n\n7. Passport issued by the Government of India upto 24th March, 1971 (midnight)\n\n8.", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 85, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 237, "end": 253, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 292, "end": 311, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 317, "end": 333, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Draft electoral roll for the constituencies of Local Self Government Institutions, except Mattannor Municipality, has been published on 20.01.2020.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 112, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 136, "end": 146, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Thus, it is clear that Arun Sharma (Tenant) was unlawfully taken into custody with malice and in utter misuse of the official position.", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 34, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Such actions would inherently affect women Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690, (Chandrachud J., concurring opinion, paragraph 117); Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 SC OnLine SC 1676, (Chandrachud J, concurring opinion, para 38) (\u201cJoseph Shine\u201d)", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 113, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 116, "end": 127, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 168, "end": 222, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 225, "end": 236, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": "However, the decree holder being a trust and there were a number of beneficiaries of the trust, the Apex Court directed the disbursement of certain amount subject to the condition that those withdrawals would not create any special equity and shall be subject to the outcome of the suit.", "entities": [ { "start": 100, "end": 110, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n Likewise, In the power of attorney (exhibit P/116) executed between Rajendra Kumar & others and Atul Surana, the plaintiff signed as a witness with name of Satish Sharma s/o Shankarlal R/o 78A Parashnand Nagar, Indore.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The power envisaged under Section 115 is statutory, whereas Article 301 is a constitutional guarantee.", "entities": [ { "start": 26, "end": 37, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 60, "end": 71, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Though we have opined that Shashoua principle has been accepted in BALCO and Enercon (India) Ltd. (supra), yet we think it apt to refer to the clauses in the agreement and scrutinize whether there is any scope to hold that the courts in India could have en- tertained the petition.", "entities": [ { "start": 67, "end": 72, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 77, "end": 97, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 237, "end": 242, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "In Thalappalam Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2013) 16 SCC 82] the Apex Court has discussed the autonomy of co-operatives vis-\u00e0- vis the constitutional provisions.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 84, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 89, "end": 99, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In the year 2011-12, the petitioner had decided to reconstruct the building over the plot in question inasmuch as the previous construction had become old and unsafe, hence had applied for planning report and the same was issued vide memo no. 4633 dated 3.6.2011.", "entities": [ { "start": 254, "end": 262, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "But, the second writ petition came up for hearing earlier and by a judgment dated 17-04-2017 reported in Kum. C. Yamini v. State of A.P. , a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, (VRSJ) dismissed the writ petition.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 92, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 105, "end": 136, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "It is further evident that when the appellant was signed off and declared medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all claims and filed representation from his home address at Gaya and those letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar.", "entities": [ { "start": 139, "end": 143, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 145, "end": 150, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 237, "end": 241, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 416, "end": 421, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Reply given by the Chartered Accountant on behalf of Nalini Chidambaram, to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai/third respondent, dated 17.08.2017, is extracted hereunder:-", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 71, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 127, "end": 134, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 159, "end": 169, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (c) The aforesaid cheque was presented by the complainant for payment through her banker -Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for its encashment, however the same was returned as dishonoured vide cheque returning memo dated 12.06.2010 with the remarks \"account closed\".", "entities": [] }, { "text": "We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005[2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company, if any, in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2224 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Court of Small Causes-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant/Insurance Company, by filing an appropriate application.", "entities": [ { "start": 82, "end": 105, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 125, "end": 197, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "In a classic passage Lord Cairns stated the principle thus ; \"If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be.", "entities": [ { "start": 26, "end": 32, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that similar prayers have been sought in a petition filed before the Supreme Court in Reepak Kansal vs. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 762 of 2020], wherein prayers are made to restrain broadcasting news, debates and interfering in the administration of justice.", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 98, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 102, "end": 161, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The prayers in the Tabular Statement of that execution application were as follows:-\n\n \"(a) A Learned Advocate of this Hon'ble Court or any other suitable person be appointed as Receiver in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2009.", "entities": [ { "start": 215, "end": 231, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Section 7(4)(c) provides that there can be an arbitration agreement in the form of exchange of statement of claims and defense, in which the existence of the agreement is asserted by one party, and not denied by the other.8", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 15, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The aforesaid Full Bench judgment in Deepak Kumar Surthar (supra) was followed by a subsequent Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 57, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 118, "end": 138, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 142, "end": 196, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The reason for fixing the date of tenure of the office of the elected representatives like the petitioner is the Government have decided dated 14.07.2006 to re-constitute 561 Special Village Panchayat as Town Panchayat and hold election to all the Town Panchayats, including the Courtlam Town Panchayat in one main stream.", "entities": [ { "start": 143, "end": 153, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 279, "end": 302, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "As statistics noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Rajaseekaran in the decision dated 22.4.2014 illustrates by 2006 fatal accidents in India crossed one lakh and after 11 years the figures stand at 1,47,913 fatal road accidents as of 2017.5", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 44, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 48, "end": 63, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 86, "end": 95, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 135, "end": 140, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Underhills considers defamatory statement as 'one which imputes conduct or qualifies tending to disparage or degrade any person, or to expose him to contempt, ridicule or public hatred or to prejudice him in the way of his office, profession or trade'. \n\n ", "entities": [] }, { "text": "On 19.12.2012, the learned Single Judge, in connected writ petition No.1980 of 2008,\nwhile refusing the interim relief passed the following order :-\n \"Meaning thereby the action of the respondents therein, in respect of land acquisition and the establishment of project by the respondents therein was upheld by the Apex court and thereafter award was delivered in the matter on 30.10.2004.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 13, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 54, "end": 83, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 342, "end": 352, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 412, "end": 422, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Then again where tile statute itself covers only a class of cases as in Haldar's cave and Bajoria's case the statute will not be bad.", "entities": [ { "start": 72, "end": 78, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 90, "end": 97, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The scheme of the NDPS Act and its objects and reasons mandate that the prosecution must prove compliance of various safeguards ensured by virtue of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 18, "end": 26, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "To ensure the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.1830, 4130 & 4109 of 2022 weight, weigh bridges to be commissioned at both the entry points (i.e.) at Bannari Check post and at Hasanur. \n\n 7) Commercial Vehicles (like lorries) will not be allowed to used the ghat road from evening 6.00 P.M to morning 6.00 A.M in interest and welfare of wild animals.", "entities": [ { "start": 59, "end": 92, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 169, "end": 176, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 195, "end": 202, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "The High Court of Allahabad has upheld the constitutional validity of cess levied in the State of U.P. on minor minerals which decisions are the subject-matter of civil appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 27, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 98, "end": 102, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 189, "end": 200, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 208, "end": 220, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners.", "entities": [ { "start": 158, "end": 171, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "As several of my learned colleagues have pointed out, the case of Queen v. Burah [3 A.C. 889.], the authority of which was not questioned before us, fully covers the contention raised, and the impugned provision is an 60\"Subject to the exceptions specified in Section 3, the Provincial Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, invest the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of", "entities": [ { "start": 66, "end": 94, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 260, "end": 269, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Jeet Singh had all the opportunities to raise the question of right, title or interest in the land in question but he did not 14 of 17 CWP-23867-2016 - 15 - choose to raise the question of title rather he suffered the order of eviction and a statement on 31.8.1981 that he would handover the vacant possession to the Panchayat.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 10, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 135, "end": 149, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 255, "end": 264, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "- Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Complainant respondent No.2, lodged FIR No.0254/2018 on 13.6.2018 against the accused/applicants alleging that on 12.6.2018 at about 10:00 P.M., accused/applicants came in Aman Palace Hotel, asked for a room, when complainant asked applicants to complete the formalities, they started searching room online and when applicants were unable to search out the room online, they insisted the complainant to provide rooms without their I.Ds. (Identity card).", "entities": [ { "start": 56, "end": 65, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 114, "end": 123, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The scope of Section 25 of the 1887 Act, came for consideration before this Court on several occasions.", "entities": [ { "start": 13, "end": 23, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Petitioner No.1 gave a complaint (DD No.54A) to the SHO of PS Malviya Nagar, on 11th June 2017 stating that at around 5 pm Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, along with 15 others, forcibly barged into the Petitioners' house.", "entities": [ { "start": 59, "end": 75, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 80, "end": 94, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "This is what the Bombay High Court in Konkola Copper Mines (supra) also interpreted BALCO (supra) as holding:\n \"The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) are purely jurisdictional in nature and can have no relevance to the question whether any part of the cause of action has taken place outside India.", "entities": [ { "start": 17, "end": 34, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 38, "end": 58, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 84, "end": 89, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 116, "end": 129, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 158, "end": 173, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 316, "end": 321, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": ", the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "They will wait for one more month and if the deal is not completed within that time period, the deposit and the bank guarantees should be returned and the deal should be treated as cancelled.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "He denies that the suit OS.No.184 of 1989 filed by him was a collusive suit and also denied that the decree passed therein was a collusive decree.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 41, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "It is suggested that loss of 15% of blood volume will result in moderate shock, and the same was denied.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n18) It is in this conspectus, this Court is to first determine the question of liability of tax under Section 6 of the Bihar Act and in the event this tax is upheld, question of penalty and interest would have to be determined.", "entities": [ { "start": 104, "end": 113, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 121, "end": 130, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet Ouchterlony Wapsnare, AIR 1969 SC 843, Court has considered the above principle in the context of 'Sovereign India' as stands under Constitution after independence, and, has observed :\n\"....in this country the Government takes by escheat immoveable as well as moveable property for want of an heir or successor.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 83, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 178, "end": 190, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "(2015) 5 SCC 549 7. (1986) 3 SCC 454 8.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 16, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 21, "end": 37, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Reason:\n is whether the second appeal for enhancement of sentence was maintainable before the High court as the High court has set aside the order of the Sessions Court and restored the order of the trial Court.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n 6.2 I have also considered the various judgments cited at the Bar.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The law of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear that even the presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.\u201d\n\n 24.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 48, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 49, "end": 52, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In the plaint, it is pleaded in para 11 that, \"...That the defendant again contacted the plaintiffs and asked for a further payment of Rs. 5,00,000/\u00ad (Rupees Five Lacs only) for his need.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Even before the Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated the matter and quantified the petitioner's liability, the first respondent bank sought to enforce the security interest under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order dated 12.10.2016 from the second respondent, within the ambit of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner with an intention to dispossess the petitioner.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 38, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 177, "end": 187, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 195, "end": 207, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 236, "end": 246, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 295, "end": 305, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 313, "end": 325, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "These are plainly disputed questions of facts and it is also apposite to examine the same in these proceedings.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Per contra, the learned counsel for complainant contended that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is in conformity with the provisions of Section 138 NI Act and does not call for interference by this Court.", "entities": [ { "start": 216, "end": 227, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 228, "end": 234, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The respondent M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018assessee\u2019) is involved in packing and clearing/forwarding of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR cement classifiable under Chapter sub heading 25232910 of Central Date: 2018.02.01 16:44:38 IST", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is undisputed that the petitioner by now has already paid Rs.11.24 crore and is further ready to pay another Rs.9 crore which will make the total of Rs.20.24 crore that is well beyond the principal.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The plaint was later on amended and it was pleaded that in the light of the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by SDO, Vidisha, the defendants No. 1 and 2 have forcibly taken possession of the disputed property and thus, relief for possession as well as mesne profit @ Rs.500/- was also incorporated.", "entities": [ { "start": 88, "end": 98, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 114, "end": 121, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Gopal Tukaram Shivade-scribe, father of PW-2, was a Police Patil of Kudal for ten years and he expired in the year 1990.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 21, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 68, "end": 73, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n 2011 (2) SCR 831- a view followed later, in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 and, more recently, endorsed in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689 that \u201cseniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 20, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 47, "end": 105, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 138, "end": 191, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "For example, the dharnas and protests were allowed to be stretched almost on the entire Jantar Mantar Road, on both sides, and even across the width of the road.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are that the land (Arazi No. 139 (kha)) area 0.0470 hectare was purchased by petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.06.2009 for the purpose of establishing Masjid and Madarsa.", "entities": [ { "start": 161, "end": 171, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In fine, all the appeals will stand allowed only in respect of the question of liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Counsel submits that the presence of PW-2 Saroj Sharma at the place of the occurrence is doubtful.", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 54, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "It must be remembered that under the Explanation to Section 34(2) (b), an award is said to be in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 69, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 132, "end": 137, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\nLAC No. 261/16 Rajesh Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. 16/21", "entities": [ { "start": 2, "end": 49, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority at Ranchi on December 18, 1999 as well as by Revisional Authority by his order dated April 20, 2000.", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 61, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 65, "end": 82, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 137, "end": 151, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Interestingly, Section 2(b) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 defines money to include a cheque, postal order, demand draft, telegraphic transfer or money order.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 27, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 31, "end": 92, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In this connection, learned Senior Counsel relied on the Apex Court decisions in Union of India-vs.- Venkateshan S. (supra) and Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust-vs.- Magnum Developers (supra).", "entities": [ { "start": 57, "end": 67, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 81, "end": 115, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 128, "end": 177, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that by virtue of Section 1 (2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021, the substituted Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to reopening of assessments came into force on 1st April, 2021.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 106, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 114, "end": 131, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 149, "end": 179, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 187, "end": 207, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 266, "end": 281, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "It is, therefore, axiomatic that a suit, an appeal or an application of the nature mentioned in the three divisions has to be instituted, preferred or made, as the case may be, within the period of limitation as prescribed if the subject matter of the suit/appeal/application is covered by the 1963 Act.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Thus, it cannot be said that by approving the appointment of the respondent no. 8, the Secretary (Tourism) had validated the minutes of meeting dated 24-2-2003 in which the candidature of 5 candidates were rejected and not only a decision was taken to waive the requirement of 10 years PG experience, but even the candidates were interviewed after waiving the requirement of 10 years PG experience.", "entities": [ { "start": 150, "end": 159, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Even respondent No.1 did not consider the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No.27105 of 2016, wherein this Court ordered to consider the representation of the life-convict within a period of one month.", "entities": [ { "start": 54, "end": 64, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 89, "end": 110, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "There is a quest for perfection and accuracy.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "More often than not, the aggravating and mitigating factors are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of them.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Hotel owners alleged that dues had piled up to Rs. 1 Crore.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The parties have fought tooth and nail on the variation of rent component as the reasonable estimated rent of Rs. 1 lakh, if confirmed, would immediately give a right to the Official Trustee to determine the lease and demand recovery of possession, and in such situation it would be difficult for Guhas to resist the claim.", "entities": [ { "start": 297, "end": 302, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n Crawford, on statutory construction has observed; which has been followed by a number of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;\n \"the question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 11, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 117, "end": 130, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n15) In Parmeshwari v. Amirchand the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where on 22.01.2003 at about 12.00 noon the appellant therein, the claimant before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 before the High Court, was going from Baganwala to Tosham on a Motor Cycle (No.HR 16C- 8379), driven by Balwan with the claimant on the pillion seat.", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 33, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 38, "end": 48, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 87, "end": 97, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 229, "end": 238, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 242, "end": 248, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 295, "end": 301, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The order granting or refusing the bail is therefore very much an order against which an appeal is permifted under Secfibn 21(1) of the Act.\" \n\n ", "entities": [ { "start": 115, "end": 128, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Before examining the rival submissions urged by Sri M.Anil Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator, and Sri P.Vikram, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, it is useful to take note of the opinion of the earlier Division Bench of this Court on this question.", "entities": [ { "start": 52, "end": 64, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 138, "end": 146, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In the case of Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.5, the Supreme Court, (in the decision authored by Hon'ble Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar) has reiterated that the examination of the Court begins with a presumption in favour of constitutionality.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 55, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 61, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 126, "end": 141, "label": "JUDGE" } ] }, { "text": " : (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Balayogi)\n\n\n The appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.685 of 2006 is the claimant and the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1233 of 2006 is the New India Assurance Company Limited.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 42, "label": "JUDGE" }, { "start": 76, "end": 100, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 138, "end": 163, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 171, "end": 206, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Hence the first proviso was inserted in Section 43-B.", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 53, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "At best, it can be said that because of the nature of the project of national importance, a guarded procedure had been adopted by the Authorities concerned albeit within the framework of Section 11A of the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 187, "end": 198, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Article 229 of the Constitution of India provides with regard to the officers and servants of the High (18 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] Court, Article 233 deals with appointment of District Judges and Article 234 deals with appointment in cases of Members of other judicial services.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 11, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 19, "end": 40, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 137, "end": 148, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 195, "end": 206, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The two judgments (1) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. President Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others MANU/SC/0479/1990 : (1990)IILLJ70SC : (1990)IILLJ70SC and (2) State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and chemicals Ltd. and Another MANU/SC/0616/1991 :\n1993(41)ECC326 : 1993(41)ECC326 were cited in support of the argument.", "entities": [ { "start": 22, "end": 203, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 212, "end": 335, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner No.1 has studied from 1969 to 1976 in Chittoor District, meaning thereby the local status of the petitioner No.1 is the State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 70, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 135, "end": 158, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\u00a0\u00a0\n17.1 It is also required to be noted that even otherwise so far as Accused No. 5 is concerned, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond doubt that in fact Accused No. 5 fired from his firearm, which as such has missed, as alleged.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Alternatively, the court considers it necessary having regard to the need for quick decision and avoidance of delay", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Judgment in the above appeal by the District Judge has been produced along with I.A.No.4447 of 2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 99, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "It is also relevant to mention that the Supreme Court in (1996) 7 SCC 765, Keshabo and another vs. State of MP and Others, held as under:-\n ''The MP Revenue Code is a welfare legislation made to protect the ownership rights in the land of a Scheduled Tribe to effectuate the constitutional obligation of Articles 39(b) and 46 of the Constitution read with the Preamble.", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 53, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 57, "end": 121, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 146, "end": 161, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 304, "end": 325, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 333, "end": 345, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "On 16.05.2011, a Notice of Arbitration was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent, in regard to payment of compensation for losses suf- fered due to abnormal delays and additional costs as a result of hin- drances caused by the Respondent.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 13, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The deposition of the said witness PW1 has been further supported by the deposition of PW2 Mohd. Rafi.", "entities": [ { "start": 91, "end": 101, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "It is not a case where the land has been acquired for the purpose of industrialization or for any private organisation, but the land has been acquired by the State for their own so as to make the agricultural land more fertile.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Even before the order dated 11.11.2020, the State of Chhattisgarh had opened 12,593 Anganwadi Centres in the State w.e.f. September, 2020.", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 38, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 44, "end": 65, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.44.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "This long-term view could explain why death sentenced and LWOP inmates would commit less violent misconduct than parole-eligible inmates, and why LWOP inmates would 65 of 111 Murder Reference No.03 of 2017 & other connected appeals 66 commit the least violence of all.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It is relevant to mention here that in Writ Petition No.9360 (MB) of 2007 filed by the original lessee (Company), the question of division of nazul land held by the original lessee and its transfer of lease-hold-rights vide deed of assignment dated 27.1.2007 in favour of the petitioner was not in issue.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 73, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 249, "end": 258, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Shri Singhvi, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of Gujrat High Court in the case of Shivlal K. Purohit and others Vs. State of Gujrat(supra) wherein the challenge was to the provisions of Gujrat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 12, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 76, "end": 93, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 109, "end": 164, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 213, "end": 272, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "In view of the definitions of \u201emark\u201f and \u201etrademark\u201f under the Trade Marks Act, a trademark for becoming a trademark will firstly have to be a mark under Section 2(m) of the Trade Marks Act i.e before the trademark would be a trademark under the Trade Marks Act there must be a mark and which falls within the definition of \u201emark\u201f under the Trade Marks Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 63, "end": 78, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 154, "end": 166, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 174, "end": 189, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 246, "end": 261, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 341, "end": 356, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "As an upshot of the discussion, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, they are dismissed.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent through out that when the jeep bearing No.MH 15 K 6520 dashed against VAD tree at 376 KM stone on the Bombay-Agra highway, his family members and himself sustained grievous injuries and he lost his wife Amaraveni and father Venkateswara Rao in the said accident.", "entities": [ { "start": 138, "end": 144, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 145, "end": 149, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 239, "end": 248, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 260, "end": 276, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": ", in para 89 of V. Sriharan (supra), the Apex Court, after taking into consideration several decisions, including the Constitution Bench decision in Vikram Singh (supra), concluded that it is nowhere prescribed in the SQ Pathan 66/117 wp.1181.1182.14 & 527.18 .(J).doc Penal Code", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 27, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 41, "end": 51, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 118, "end": 136, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 149, "end": 161, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "She had developed relationship with Balak Ram about one year prior to murder.", "entities": [ { "start": 36, "end": 45, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The first defendant's son was examined as D.W.1 and two other vendees under the agreement were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.B.1, dated 18.08.1989, certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.123 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, was marked on behalf of the defendants.", "entities": [ { "start": 136, "end": 146, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 180, "end": 198, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 218, "end": 246, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "It is sufficient in law, if there is intention coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Herein above in A2 which is another admitted signature from the written statement of the defendant there are all the alphabets of the full name of the defendant.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The agreement dated 18.12.2017 between the parties specifically stipulated that a notice sent by the arbitrator, to the parties, by registered post, at the addresses mentioned in the Loan Agreement will be considered sufficient service to the parties, whether such notice is received by them or not, or refused or is returned undelivered.", "entities": [ { "start": 20, "end": 30, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "E.Noohu Kannu, the sister of PW1, Sri.A.Saleem, the husband of the additional 3rd plaintiff and Sri.A.P.Khan, the brother in law of the 1st plaintiff respectively were examined as PWs 2 to 4.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 13, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 38, "end": 46, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 100, "end": 108, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "At the inception, the present complaint was filed by Smt. Ram Piari (hereinafter \"complainant\") against Mr. Lalit Parkash (hereinafter \"accused\") and Ms. Sonia under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter \"NI Act\").", "entities": [ { "start": 58, "end": 67, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 108, "end": 121, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 154, "end": 159, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 166, "end": 177, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 185, "end": 217, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 232, "end": 238, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Even prior to the said decision and that of the Full Bench, the said issue has been concluded by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case(supra).", "entities": [ { "start": 101, "end": 111, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 115, "end": 132, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "From paragraphs 34 to 41 of its judgment in Barkha Gupta, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court highlighted the importance of inspection of subordinate Courts by the Administrative Judges, the object of which is the assessment of the work of the subordinate judicial officers, their capability, integrity and competence.", "entities": [ { "start": 44, "end": 56, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 84, "end": 100, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The State of Kerala, which accounts for 3% of Country's population, has one of the highest numbers of matrimonial cases in the Nation.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 19, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "PW.16 Damanpreet Singh deposed that he knew Kulwant Singh.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 22, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 44, "end": 57, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "But, he has got no document to substantiate the same.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "His brother Jameel was taken to Gwalior and thereafter, he heard that the assailants have killed their own father Jainuuddin.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 18, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 32, "end": 39, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 114, "end": 124, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first defendant in CS No. 213 of 2018 has submitted that, the authority for the purpose of pre- institution mediation was notified on July 3, 2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 79, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 176, "end": 188, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that she has studied from elementary school to Class X at St. Joseph School, Nandyal, Kurnool District and therefore, she has prosecuted her studies in the united State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 105, "end": 149, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 219, "end": 233, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "This Court granted leave and accordingly the special leave petitions were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 8109 and 8110 of 2010 vide order dated 6th September, 2010.", "entities": [ { "start": 89, "end": 128, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 146, "end": 165, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In this context a reference is made to the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 386, and a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in the case Konan Kodio Ganstone & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.548 of 2020].", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 134, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 165, "end": 212, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 225, "end": 317, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n(8) Pending appeal, mother passed away and during her lifetime, she executed a registered will deed dated 20.10.1986, bequeathing her entire share in favour of Defendant No.1 only.", "entities": [ { "start": 108, "end": 118, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "In this connection, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. C.L.Vimla (supra), relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:\n 21.", "entities": [ { "start": 68, "end": 81, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 85, "end": 120, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "This point is made not to solicit pity but to bring attention to the fact that any individual could be caught in a similar web and find himself inside a pit such as Folsom Prison.\"\n iii) The Apex Court in the said judgment formulated its findings which are as under:\n KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch \"72.", "entities": [ { "start": 191, "end": 201, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 273, "end": 295, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "PW1 Rinki Sharma, widow of the deceased also deposed that her husband was working as a tailor at village Jundla.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 16, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 105, "end": 111, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Such an act was not given any retrospective effect by the legislature.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "However, at present Chairperson of the DRAT is not available and the matter was last heard by the DRAT on 08.09.2021 and delay was condoned and thereafter, the mater was kept on 16.09.2021.", "entities": [ { "start": 39, "end": 43, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 98, "end": 102, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 106, "end": 116, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 178, "end": 188, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Systemic discrimination on account of gender at the workplace would then encapsulate the patriarchal disadvantage that permeates all aspects of her being from the outset, including reproduction, sexuality and private choices which operate within an unjust structure.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Through this witness, the defence has brought on record various contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW-12 Sharad Kacharu Pawar.", "entities": [ { "start": 132, "end": 152, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n (vii) Whether the sub-classification of MBC into three categories can be done solely based on adequate population data, in the absence of any objective criteria?\u201d\n\n12.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In Aghnoo Magsha v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119) it has been held that if the first information is given by the accused himself the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Sec.8 of the Evidence Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 53, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 231, "end": 236, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 244, "end": 256, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Others as reported in AIR 1999 SC 3571, wherein the ratio of the judgment in para 25 is that the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 74, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 90, "end": 170, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 271, "end": 281, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 289, "end": 301, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": ", relied upon the following judgments:\n\n (i) An unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13320/2006 dated 22.09.2006 paragraphs 2,4,5,9,10. \n\n (ii) B.Javarayagouda S/o Boregouda vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1153, para 17. \n\n (iii) Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of R. Prasanna Kumar & another vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1378 para 25.", "entities": [ { "start": 85, "end": 102, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 109, "end": 119, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 151, "end": 238, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 307, "end": 391, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The promotee Inspectors promoted well within 25% promotee quota.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "On the facts of that case, on 28.02.2017, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court ruled that Antrix\u2019s petition under Section 9 of the Ar- bitration Act, 1996 before the Bangalore Court was not maintainable, and that Devas\u2019 petition under Section 9 was maintainable, the bar under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 being inapplicable.", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 40, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 72, "end": 88, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 100, "end": 106, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 124, "end": 133, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 141, "end": 165, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 224, "end": 229, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 246, "end": 255, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 288, "end": 298, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 306, "end": 327, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is also to be noted that in BALCO, the Constitution Bench has not merely repro- duced few paragraphs from Shashoua but has also referred to other decisions on which Shashoua has placed reliance upon.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 36, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 42, "end": 60, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 109, "end": 117, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 168, "end": 176, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Under Rule 20(4) of the Rules as they stood before the amendment of the Rules in the year 1991, the Disciplinary Authority was required to deliver to the delinquent, a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge was proposed to be sustained.", "entities": [ { "start": 6, "end": 16, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "Thus it is evident that the said lands are Waqf lands and grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to individuals in respect of Wakf lands is not in order.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 47, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 125, "end": 129, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n P.W.5 Ranvir Singh deposed that he was travelling in the bus-in-question and had suffered injuries on account of the bomb blast.", "entities": [ { "start": 9, "end": 21, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6\u00ad11\u00ad2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench in Writ Appeal No.2 of 2018 dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.", "entities": [ { "start": 111, "end": 143, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 147, "end": 171, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The same was transferred in the name of Bhanwarmal Singhvi on 08.07.1971 and out of the aforesaid land, 7 bigha 7 biswa was sold to Gulab Badi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti who developed another residential scheme namely Murtikala Colony and 90-B proceedings were initiated by JDA thereto on 04.12.1999 and lease has also been issued by the JDA to the land holders.", "entities": [ { "start": 40, "end": 58, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 62, "end": 72, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 132, "end": 170, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 275, "end": 278, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 290, "end": 300, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 339, "end": 342, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "g) Emaar has agreed to develop an IT Infrastructure in 20 to 30 acres of land from out of the land designated for development of residential project with a built up area of 10,00,000/-sq.feet.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 8, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Petitioner No.1 has studied from 1988 to 1993 in Guntur which falls under the State of Andhra Pradesh and petitioner No.2 has studied from 1986 to 1992 in SPSR Nellore and Visakhapatnam Districts which also fall in the State of Andhra Pradesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 49, "end": 55, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 78, "end": 101, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 155, "end": 195, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 219, "end": 242, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Answering points (v) to (vii), the High Court was of the opinion that there was no quantifiable data relating to the population, socio-economic status and representation of the backward classes in the services.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In this case the license fee was regulatory in character.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The jurisdiction to assess u/s. 147 is assumed on the basis of the issue of notice u/s. 148, and not its' service, and which could therefore be served even subsequently (R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shamabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC); Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB)).", "entities": [ { "start": 29, "end": 35, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 85, "end": 91, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 170, "end": 230, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 232, "end": 290, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 292, "end": 346, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "In her deposition, PW-1 (W-1) stated that Shabbir Ahmed 124 of 140 CRA-S Nos.2903-SB, 2901-SB, 2945-SB, and 2668-SB of 2018 (O&M) CASE HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING", "entities": [ { "start": 42, "end": 55, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ajay Hasia (supra) to show that Article 14 has been interpreted to include guarantee against arbitrariness and that arbitrariness in state-action either by the legislature or the executive, is sufficient to initiate that action mentioned in para 16 of the said judgment.", "entities": [ { "start": 53, "end": 63, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 67, "end": 77, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 99, "end": 109, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "The sole dissenting view adopted is of a learned Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Palak Khatuja and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2021) 438 ITR 622.", "entities": [ { "start": 65, "end": 88, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 100, "end": 182, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "At this stage, it is very relevant to note that neither present applicant nor his son Maunag was present at the office of Jankitbhai on 24.8.2020, but said witness states that the first informant was pressurized and forced to sign the documents.", "entities": [ { "start": 86, "end": 92, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 122, "end": 132, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 136, "end": 145, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Copy of this judgment be circulated to all Subordinate Criminal Courts of Delhi by the learned Registrar General of this Court.", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 79, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "In paragraph 43.6 the Apex Court directed that, insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, subject to the observations made in para 38 of Reshma Kumari.", "entities": [ { "start": 22, "end": 32, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 226, "end": 237, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 286, "end": 299, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Shri Alex M.Thombra relied on the testimony of PW9 Vasudevan, father of deceased Vinod.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 19, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 51, "end": 60, "label": "WITNESS" }, { "start": 81, "end": 86, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "It is further urged that the aforesaid three decisions cannot be considered in light of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and the recent decision of this Court in M/S.Evershine Monuments.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In that matter the Hon'ble Apex Court had divided TADA detenus in four classes and held that hardcore under trials whose release would prejudice the prosecution case and their liberty may prove to be a menace to the society in general, and to the complainant and prosecution witnesses in particular, do not deserve", "entities": [ { "start": 27, "end": 37, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 50, "end": 54, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "It is submitted that out of the 10 candidates that had appeared before the authorities of R. D. Gardi Medical College, 4 candidates namely; Shashank Nayak (2604), Muskan Jaisinghani (1322) Sapna Solanki (7821) and Ratnanjay Sarvate (1648), were permanent residents of M.P.", "entities": [ { "start": 90, "end": 117, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 140, "end": 154, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 163, "end": 181, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 189, "end": 202, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 214, "end": 231, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "At this juncture, it is relevant to peruse the Supreme Court's decision rendered in Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal and others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 304.", "entities": [ { "start": 47, "end": 60, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 84, "end": 166, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The place where they heard sound of fire, from there the place of incident was 400 meters towards southern.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\"Prayer in the present application is for the modification of the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by this Court whereby the petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4835/15 State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Maharana Partap Charitable Trust.", "entities": [ { "start": 78, "end": 88, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 190, "end": 203, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 207, "end": 284, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "But, in the complaints / charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Regulation 34(6) states that the revertees shall 2006 Supp (10) SCR 1 2008 (3) SCC 331 subsequently be considered for repromotion against the quota of vacancies reserved for promotees.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 16, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 49, "end": 86, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "The findings in Sudhakaran and others v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KHC 610) to the extent that the report of the Chemical Examiner in 'B' sample will not supersede the report of the Chemical analysis in sample 'A' is upheld.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 75, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Once the issue was raised, it was only the petitioner who could have categorically denied such assertion or proved that his statement in the application form was correct at the relevant time.\n Not having done so and only nitpicking on the issue of not having been given an opportunity of cross", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In such circumstances, in my view, the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the truck driver was guilty of violation of the express provisions of Sections 122, 126 and 127 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by leaving the offending truck unattended, without due and proper caution, in the middle of the road, and that too on a flyover..", "entities": [ { "start": 149, "end": 174, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 182, "end": 206, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "According to AO, in view of Section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act, the employees contribution is to be paid within the due date of payment as prescribed in the respective Acts (PF/ESI Act) to claim deduction.", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 58, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 181, "end": 191, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. [(1999) 7 SCC 510] has held that, \"9.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 25, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 41, "end": 103, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "They do not depend on the legal or constitutional form in which they are declared.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Shri Sibal has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1 for the preposition that doctrine of implication has to be applied to explain the constitutional concepts.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 10, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 60, "end": 107, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Pass mark for each subject would be 40 and in addition to that candidates were required to obtain 50% in aggregate in order to be successful in the written test.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The positive evidence of PW7, Shailesh Shetye was discarded only to the extent of negligence aspect, stating him not to be a natural witness.", "entities": [ { "start": 30, "end": 45, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "\n Commercial Complex, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad-02 13", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer's suspicious role in the case.\" \n\nThe learned Prosecutor has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRA No.2615/2005 (Sukhendra Singh S/o Niranjan Singh Ghosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)", "entities": [ { "start": 260, "end": 288, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 292, "end": 379, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "Making a clear distinction between a charging provision of a taxing statute and exemption notification which waives a tax or a levy normally imposed, the Supreme Court observed as under:-\n\n \"14.", "entities": [ { "start": 154, "end": 167, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The relevant date under the Land Ceiling Act was 07.04.1960 on which date the extent of properties in hands of a person has to be determined and since three brothers, who consisted members of joint family on the relevant date had more than the land which was permitted to a person, a partition was entered to save the properties from land ceiling laws.", "entities": [ { "start": 28, "end": 44, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 49, "end": 59, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Mr. Chakraborty complains that there was no formal charge-sheet.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 15, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation.", "entities": [ { "start": 246, "end": 251, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 259, "end": 268, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "This defence was not taken by these accused till the recording of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and not put to the material prosecution witness.", "entities": [ { "start": 87, "end": 98, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 99, "end": 106, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "But, as seen from the allegations made in the charge-sheet, he was appointed initially as a clerk by the Government and subsequently worked as Paid Secretary at Minarpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.", "entities": [ { "start": 161, "end": 179, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 181, "end": 194, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 196, "end": 214, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "It is also relevant to note that the CBI had also consistently opposed the petitioner's release on parole on the ground that a co- convict had absconded after being released on parole.", "entities": [ { "start": 37, "end": 40, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "The majority judgment also noted:\n \"Of significance to the interpretation of the Patent Act and the issue of its applicability to higher life forms is the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, passed in 1990 subsequent to this Court's decision in Pioneer Hi-Bred,supra, in which it was determined that a crossbred soybean variety did not meet the disclosure requirements of the Patent Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 87, "end": 97, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 168, "end": 194, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 402, "end": 412, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs examined the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 and tabled its Report in Parliament on 1st March, 2013.", "entities": [ { "start": 23, "end": 71, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 85, "end": 120, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 146, "end": 156, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 160, "end": 175, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Lord Goff also noted that Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in the Court of Appeal expressed his agreement with Sir Stephen Brown P. in the following words:-\n\n \"This was in my respectful view a wise ruling, directed to the protection of patients, the protection of doctors, the reassurance of patients' families and the reassurance of the public.", "entities": [ { "start": 5, "end": 9, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 30, "end": 49, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 106, "end": 122, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In some of the petitions, a challenge has been laid to Rules 28 and 29 of the Haryana Rules as well as to forms CRA and CAO as amended by the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Amendment Rules, 2019 notified on 12th September, 2019 ('Haryana Amendment Rules 2019') as being ultra vires the Act.", "entities": [ { "start": 55, "end": 70, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 142, "end": 212, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 225, "end": 245, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 248, "end": 276, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of Courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral pro- ceedings in connection with the arbitration in one Court exclusively.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 10, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "This is so, although, the State enactments may refer to the provisions of LA Act, 1894 for certain purposes.", "entities": [ { "start": 74, "end": 86, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The appellants filed their counter affidavit in the writ petition on 08.09.2006 and the writ petition was finally heard and decided by the High Court by its impugned judgment dated 10.04.2017.", "entities": [ { "start": 69, "end": 79, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 181, "end": 191, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n c) By that time, Smt.Vijayalakshmi, her husband, he, CW-2 and police were present.", "entities": [ { "start": 24, "end": 37, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n6.1.3 In P.A. Inamdar (supra), the Supreme Court while answering question no. 3 held that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering.", "entities": [ { "start": 11, "end": 23, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 37, "end": 50, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "The Pledgor further agrees that the notice period provided under this Notice, from the date of this Notice till the Enforcement Date is reasonable notice of any enforcement action in respect of the Security, including for the purposes of section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.", "entities": [ { "start": 238, "end": 249, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 257, "end": 282, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Most of these buses for all practical purposes operate as stage carriage services masquerading as contract carriages.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Both the telegrams transmitted or imparted information to the respondent that he was suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958.", "entities": [ { "start": 125, "end": 139, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "26.1.2 Multiple linear scratches over right subcostal and lumbar regions in area of 10*10 cms.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "\n\n7.1 Relying upon decision of Delhi High Court, in the case of Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of GST & C. Ex., Salem 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 321 (Mad.), Madras High Court has concluded, in the relevant Paras as below:\n \" 36.", "entities": [ { "start": 31, "end": 47, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 64, "end": 164, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 166, "end": 183, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "(5) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 302,307,147,148,149, 201 PC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed before the Court of JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind from where case committed to the Court of Session.", "entities": [ { "start": 58, "end": 91, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 92, "end": 94, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 99, "end": 112, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 120, "end": 128, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 150, "end": 186, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "Undisputedly, AO has initially made disallowance of Rs.1,34,56,177/- claimed as expenditure by the assessee under the head \"legal, professional and consultancy charges\", which amount has been restricted by ld. CIT (A) in appeal to Rs.71,59,700/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The Petitioners expressed their inability to remain present on 5 th February 2016 and expressed that they would remain present on 8 th February 2016 for collecting amount of compensation along with interest.", "entities": [ { "start": 63, "end": 81, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 130, "end": 148, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "First Appellate Court has also found the sale deed dated 06.06.1988 in \"stark violation of the order passed by the Court.\"", "entities": [ { "start": 57, "end": 67, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "On 8.12.2006, P.W.18 also arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and sent all the accused for remand.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 12, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "\n\n51) The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of in Hindustan Wires Limited v. R.Suresh (6 supra) and also N.B.C.C. Limited (12 supra), to contend that as the time period for conclusion of proceedings had expired and in the absence of any application seeking extension of time, the arbitrator ceases to have jurisdiction.", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 112, "label": "PRECEDENT" }, { "start": 132, "end": 148, "label": "ORG" } ] }, { "text": "Unless a person was saddled with any liability in any manner under Section 110-B, he would not be a \"person aggrieved\" within the meaning of the term employed in Section 110-D. ................................................. (3) AIR 1993 Jammu and Kashmir 69 [Nahar Singh and another v. Manohar Kumar and others]:\n 6.", "entities": [ { "start": 67, "end": 80, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 162, "end": 176, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 231, "end": 314, "label": "PRECEDENT" } ] }, { "text": "She admits that Majjigere is situated half a kilometer in the arecanut garden and about 20 house are there in Majjigere Village.", "entities": [ { "start": 16, "end": 25, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 110, "end": 127, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "Reshma, is also a resident of Bangladesh.", "entities": [ { "start": 0, "end": 6, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 30, "end": 40, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "These three heads make up nearly 40 per cent of the annual operating and administrative expenditure of Rs.13,92,000/-.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "In the present case, the police have registered the crime for the offences KL,J Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of IPC.", "entities": [ { "start": 80, "end": 101, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" }, { "start": 116, "end": 143, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 147, "end": 150, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Such person shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than Rupees one lakh but it may extend to Rupees one crore.", "entities": [] }, { "text": ", the body is divided into different areas, each representing nine per cent.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "As it is clearly proved by the accused that even if the rate of interest is calculated from the date of loan , i.e from 15.2.2012 to 14.11.2014 , for the period of 2 years 9 months it would amount to Rs.88,000/- if calculated at the rate of 16% p.a.", "entities": [ { "start": 120, "end": 129, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 133, "end": 143, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "Coming back to Jagrutiben, she was not an eye\u00adwitness, admittedly, and has no personal knowledge and it is apparent from the report she has stated that the deceased left the house for a morning walk at around 0645 hours/0700 hours.", "entities": [ { "start": 15, "end": 25, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "The State of UP set out the factual position about the grant of leases before the NGT in an affidavit filed in this behalf.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 15, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 82, "end": 85, "label": "COURT" } ] }, { "text": "When therefore there is an express designa- tion of the arbitration venue as London and no desig- nation of any alternative place as the seat, combined with a supranational body of rules governing the arbi- tration and no other significant contrary indicia, the in- exorable conclusion is, to my mind, that London is the juridical seat and English law the curial law.", "entities": [ { "start": 77, "end": 83, "label": "GPE" }, { "start": 307, "end": 313, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "On his request, we appoint Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate (Roll No. 10033/12), as an Advocate Commissioner, to visit S.R.N. Hospital, attached to Medical Collage, Allahabad, accompanying Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, today itself, in day's time and submit report by tomorrow.", "entities": [ { "start": 32, "end": 50, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 120, "end": 135, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 149, "end": 175, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 195, "end": 206, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" } ] }, { "text": "In this case the delay caused is 15 days.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (P.W.10) is an independent expert witness who conducted the postmortem.", "entities": [ { "start": 4, "end": 16, "label": "WITNESS" } ] }, { "text": "The petitioner having collected Service Tax, is obliged to deposit the collected tax with the authorities.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Secondly, the learned counsel submits that Section 1(4) of the said 1948 Act primary applies to factories.", "entities": [ { "start": 43, "end": 55, "label": "PROVISION" } ] }, { "text": "A certificate claimed to have been issued by Gram Pradhan on 26.08.2015 that after construction of Mosque at the disputed land, Namaz is being offered in the aforesaid Mosque.", "entities": [ { "start": 61, "end": 71, "label": "DATE" } ] }, { "text": "One of the questions which was framed for consideration by the Supreme Court was whether Section 2(d) read with Section 3 of Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999, Section 2(d) read with Section 3 of Kerala Act and Bihar Act, 1993 (before its amendment in 2003), never intended to levy any entry tax on the goods, entering into local area of the State from any place outside the territory of India.", "entities": [ { "start": 63, "end": 76, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 89, "end": 101, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 112, "end": 121, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 125, "end": 151, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 153, "end": 165, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 176, "end": 185, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 189, "end": 199, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 204, "end": 219, "label": "STATUTE" }, { "start": 381, "end": 386, "label": "GPE" } ] }, { "text": "There is no mechanism for Patna High Court REQ. CASE No. 146 of 2019 dt.03-07-2020 the adjudicatory process of the disputes or claims of a private party under the Recovery Act.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "Mr. Arun Bharadwaj, ld. CGSC, appearing for the Union of India, has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:09.10.2020 16:15 Digitally Signed By:SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2020 16:50:02 reiterated the submissions made by Dr. Singhvi and has further submitted that this petition ought to be heard with the OA No. 291/138/2020 pending before the CAT.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "It cannot be assumed having regard to this development that in enacting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the legislature merely intended to declare the rule enunciated by the Privy Council in Pratapmull case.", "entities": [ { "start": 72, "end": 82, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 90, "end": 110, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "The suit and the proceedings would be a futile exercise and not capable of giving a valid and an executable decree after its withdrawal by the original plaintiff and the decree if any that can be passed in the suit would not bind on the plaintiff Sakha Yogam or its members/office bearers unless they have been made as a party to the suit.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "That, on conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe trial Court\u201d) held all the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/\u00ad each and, in case of default in paying the fine, to undergo one year RI.", "entities": [ { "start": 46, "end": 127, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 226, "end": 242, "label": "PROVISION" }, { "start": 250, "end": 253, "label": "STATUTE" } ] }, { "text": "Apparently, Channaraddi set up his daughters Gangavva and Mallamma to impede and defeat the proceedings in O.S.No.31/2009.", "entities": [ { "start": 12, "end": 23, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 45, "end": 53, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 58, "end": 66, "label": "OTHER_PERSON" }, { "start": 107, "end": 121, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "After the dismissal of the petition for annulment of marriage, the respondent/wife filed F.C.O.P.No.41 of 2012 for restitution of conjugal rights.", "entities": [ { "start": 89, "end": 110, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "On 12.07.2018, a letter was received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Maharashtra asking to handover the custody of appellants to D.R.I., Bangalore as they were required to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Maharashtra in Special Case (NDPS) No.17 of 2018.", "entities": [ { "start": 3, "end": 13, "label": "DATE" }, { "start": 46, "end": 92, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 141, "end": 158, "label": "ORG" }, { "start": 202, "end": 248, "label": "COURT" }, { "start": 252, "end": 285, "label": "CASE_NUMBER" } ] }, { "text": "The date on which the measurements were recorded and the entries in the measurement book are inconsistent.", "entities": [] }, { "text": "The lower back end was 5 cm behind root of right ear lobule.", "entities": [] } ]