1. This is first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 90 of 2016 registered at P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 186, 332, 353/ 34 of IPC. […]
In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued while considering the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.
This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand-father of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has granted a decree of maintenance in favour of the respondents directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and Rs. 1000/- each to two granddaughters who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.
This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant (for brevity ‘the husband’) to assail the legality and validity of the impugned judgement dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 208-A/2013, whereby his marriage with the respondent (for brevity ‘the wife’) has been annulled by issuing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
These are the batch of Misc. Appeals filed under Section 20(1) of the Coal-Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development), Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1957’), challenging the order passed by the Tribunal (Presided over by the District Judge) constituted under Section 15 (2) of the Act 1957.
This appeal is directed against the decree of judicial separation passed by the Family Court, Durg on 21.01.2014. 2. The appellant preferred an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1955’) on the pleadings that her marriage was solemnised with the respondent on 09.06.2003. After one and half years of marriage, the respondent lost his speech and thereafter other organs including the sexual organ became ineffective.
It is held that the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India within the four corners of law and yardsticks set out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-quoted judgements (supra) qua interference in contractual matter.
To ascertain as to whether a service can be classified as Deluxe service only on the ground that the seats in the vehicle have push back or reclining facility. It appears, there is no such provision that only on such facility being available in a vehicle it can be classified as a Deluxe service
The appellants herein namely Sunil @ Balikaran Sahu and Amit Gupta were awarded death sentence by the trial Court after having found them guilty for offences punishable under Sections 460 (three counts), 324 (three counts), 307 (three counts), 506 Part-II (ten counts), 397 (nine counts) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). They were sentenced to death by hanging under sub-section (5) of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’). Conviction and sentences imposed upon both the appellants are as follows: –
The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, which has directed the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the prayer made by him for declaring the sale deed dated 26-3-2012 executed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No.6 as null & void and not benefiting the respondent No. 6.
