0

The High court of Patna allowed the petition to set aside the judgement and order sentence by the trial court as no proper material to be proved under section 147,148 and 307 r/w149 of IPC

 

The High court of Patna allowed the petition to set aside the judgement and order sentence by the trial court as no proper material to be proved under section 147,148 and 307 r/w149 of IPC 

Title-chakra@chakravarty Kumar VS The state of Bihar

Decided on -31/10/2023

+CR.APP (SJ) No.523/2017

CORAM- HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.SHAILENDRA SINGH

INTRODUCTION

The appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI Aurangabad by which appellant was held Guilty for the offences punishable under section 147,148 and 307 r/w section 149 of IPC and in case of non payment of fine they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and all the said sentences were directed by the trial court.

FACTS

As per the facts substance of the prosecutions case as per the fardbeyan oh informant as on 31/10/2013 the informant was sitting at Sharma mobile shop located at Amba Hariharganj road, meanwhile two person chara bad sujeet Mehta came in motorcycle which was parked few feet away from the shop thereafter co-convict sujeet Mehta came near him and talking to other persons and then the appellant/convict sujeet Mehta took out a pistol and opened fire at him which hit at his right hand near elbow and chakra appellant/convict also fired at him and then anyhow he rushed & saved himself and file a formal FIR was registered and were appellant stood charged for the offences punishable under section 147,148,149 and 307 of IPC and also changed for offence punishable under section 27 of Arms Act.and both wre charged in two different trial court and after framing charges their trial ran jointly and convicted for the same judgement which has been challenged In this appeal.After the completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the convict were recorded and the appellant no.1 denied the circumstances appearing against him.The learned counsel for appellant states that before the trail court the prosecution failed to establish the alleged place of occurrence and no serious contradiction among the statements of the material and also it was further argued that the eyewitness if the alleged occurrence as per FIR deposed a contradictory fact in respect of the allegation concerned to tha appellant no.1 and the investigation officer did not examine the shopkeepers whose shops are situated nearby the place of occurrence except one shopkeeper where as learned APP opposed and state that all the allegation has been supported by the material prosecution witnesses .

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As per the Hon’ble court , the court heard both sides perused the Judgement impugned and evidence available on the case record of trial court and persued the statements of the appellant. In the light of the circumstances appearing from the above discussed facts and evidence, the court analysis they athe prosecution didi not succeed to prove the allegations levelled against the hr present appellant No.1 by the so-called victim in his fardbeyan beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of the prosecution were not appreciated in right manner in respect if the allegations made against the appellant No.1 and said to be allegations appear to be highly suspicious. As such, The impugned Judgement and impugned order sentencing the appellant are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. In result the present appeal stands allowed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement

0

High Court of Madras decision regarding appointment of the Respondent to the post of Panchayat Secretary.

High Court of Madras decision regarding  appointment of the  Respondent to the post of Panchayat Secretary.

 

Title : G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector

Case no. : W.P. No.2456 of 2021

Decided no. : 30.10.2023.

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Introduction

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2 nd Respondent bearing proceedings in Na.Ka.No.jp2/698/2018, dated 28.11.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, Jayakondam, Melbhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

Fact of the Case

The Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the appointment of the third Respondent to the post of Panchayat Secretary. According to him, the third Respondent has secured the employment by forgery and misrepresentation. One of the conditions for appointment is that the candidate should be a local resident and residence certificates has to be submitted in this regard. Heard Mr.P.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third Respondent.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The documents filed by the third Respondent are genuine and they are not the products of forgery or misrepresentation. The Petitioner has his own adverse idea about the entitlement of residential status of the petitioner at her parents’ house. With that adversity in mind, this petition has been filed and which in my opinion does not have any merits. A woman would turn out to her parental abode for any good or bad reasons and sometimes she would even prefer to stay there for any period of her choice with an understanding with her parental home inmates. A choice and will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism in order to deny her the residential status there.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written  by Nimisha Sunny

0
patna high court

Nothing Left To Be Decided As The Subject Matter Advertisement Was 8 Years Old: Patna High Court

Title: Dr. Veena Kumari v The Bihar Agricultural University

Citation: CWJC No.12028 of 2014

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Decided On: 04-10-2023

Introduction:

The instant application was filed for quashing the Letter no. 1041 dated 4.7.2014 whereby the letter issued to the petitioner by the University calling the petitioner for interview to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist for discipline Agriculture Economics vide Advertisement no.06/2013 dated 4.9.2013 was illegally recalled.

Facts:

It is submitted that the call letter for the interview had been held on 15.07.2014 for the post of Agriculture Economics was wrongly due to typographical/technical error. It is mentioned here that the petitioner namely Dr. Veena Kumari earlier moved this Hon’ble Court vide CWJC No. 1415 of 2008 for the same issue, the Hon’ble Court has passed order and rejected the grievance of the petitioner on 04.08.2011 for consideration of her candidature on the basis of her M.Sc. degree without having corresponding degree at the under graduate level on the ground that so long as the eligibility condition prescribed under Para-17.2 of RAU Act & Statute.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

the interview which is the subject matter of the instant application having taken place more than 8 years ago. So in present case there is nothing remaining to be decided on, hence the writ application was disposed by the court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Expert decisions are made with ample application of mind, court ought not sit in appeals over the same: Delhi High Court dismisses challenge to CERT-IN’s empanelment procedure

Case name: Trusted Info Systems Pvt Ltd. V Indian Computer Emergency Response Team 

Case no.: WP (C) 7508/2021

Date: 21.11.2023 

Coram: Subramonium Prasad, J

Introduction:

High court of Delhi recently upheld the CERT-IN’s decision to uphold master list from the appellant in order to maintain sanctity of the empanelment procedures in IT operations. 

Facts of the case

The petitioner had come before the court, claiming that the CERT-IN Practical Skills Tests evaluation procedure for 2020 and 2021 was completely arbitrary

In this case, operating system-related vulnerabilities were unlawfully added by CERT-IN to the “Master List” (a list of vulnerabilities that need to be found), prepared for tests conducted in 2020-21, but the same was not a part of the scope of tests. 

It is argued by the petitioner that this discrepancy was constantly overlooked, even though there were multiple requests for auditing. 

The respondents have argued that the petitioner failed to qualify the Online Practical Skills Test on two seprate occasions and hence they were debarred for a year as a cool off period. 

Court’s analysis: 

The court found no particular fauled in the decision made by CERT-IN. It is said that the Master list is an important aspect for future empanelment procedures, and witholing it is ensuuring the sanctity of IT operations of important public authorities. It is also concluded that there was complete application of mind by the CERT-IN, and hence its decision was upheld by the court. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Radhika Shekhawat

Read More
0

High Court of Madras decision on questioned the maintainability of the suit in the face of an arbitration agreement having been incorporated in the contract.

High Court of Madras decision on questioned the maintainability of the suit in the face of an arbitration agreement having been incorporated in the contract.

Case Title : Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors vs Omaxe Ltd on 6 November, 2023\

Decided on : 6th November 2023

Case No. : RFA 823/2019

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

Introduction

   This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) assails judgment and decree dated 15 July 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”), whereby Suit CS 10977/2016, instituted by the respondent against the appellants, stands decreed in favour of the respondent. Said suit was instituted by the respondent against the appellants under Order XXXVII of the CPC. The appellants, as the defendants in the suit, questioned the maintainability of the suit in the face of an arbitration agreement having been incorporated into the contract between the RFA 823/2019 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM Signing Date:06.11.2023 16:58:54 appellants and the respondent, relying, for the purpose, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Fact of the Case

 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the appellants and the respondent on 2 May 2005, whereunder 29 bighas of land owned by the respondent were to be acquired by the appellants. For the purposes of this judgment, it is not necessary to enter into the covenants of the MOU. Suffice it to state that, in terms of the MOU, the respondent paid ₹ 64,22,925/- to the appellants. The MOU provided that, in the event of the appellants failing to obtain necessary permissions from statutory authorities in respect of the covenanted land, the MOU would stand terminated at the option of the respondent and the appellants would refund the amount paid by the respondent along with costs, expenses, fees and charges.

Case Analysis and Judgment

 In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15 July 2019, passed by the learned ADJ, insofar as it proceeds to adjudicate the suit on merits, despite a valid Section 8 objection having been raised by the appellants, cannot sustain. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The dispute between the parties would, therefore, be referable to arbitration. The parties are at liberty, therefore, to initiate arbitral proceedings in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed, albeit without costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written  by Nimisha Sunny

1 12 13 14 15 16 72